^^^^ 



V 



o 0~ 



4 



\3 



4 



■ ■ V 
,0 a 



4 



o5 



A 



y 1 ^ 



-1^ 



-mi' 








ON ^.vi « ^ 

^^^^ 




^ ^ 




LEISURE HOUR SERIES—No. 109. 



CARD ESSAYS 
CLAY'S DECISIONS 

AND 

CARD-TABLE TALK 

BY 

"CAVENDISH," 

Author of " The Laws and Prmciples of IVhist^^'' etc, 

Uc 

r <- ' 

/ , 

AMERICAN EDITION, WITH AN INDEX. 




HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 

1880 



G;V 1 : 



Copyrii;ht, iSSo, by Henry Holt & Co. 



TO 



EDWARD TAVENER FOSTER, 



IS 



CORDIALLY DEDICATED, 



BY 



His Sincere Friend, 



THE AUTHOR. 



PREFACE. 



In the present volume the Author has repro- 
duced (with corrections and numerous augmenta- 
tions) some miscellaneous papers on subjects 
connected with Cards, w^hich have hitherto been 
buried in back numbers of periodicals. 

Also, Decisions by the late Mr. Clay, to which 
some are added that have not been previously 
published. 

The concluding portion of the volume consists 
of notes of events which have come within the 
Author's personal experience, at Cards or in con- 
nection with Card-playerS; during the last twenty 
years. 

The matters related as anecdotes have all acta- 



vi PREFACE. 

ally happened. None have been manufactured 
for the sake of effect. It is possible that some of 
the characters may be recognized by a limited cir- 
cle ; but the Author has been careful not to name 
names/' except where the persons referred to are 
beyond the pale of offence or injury. 

An apology should, perhaps, be tendered for 
the number of capital I's" expended in the lat- ^ 
ter part of the volume. An attempt has been 
made to keep them down ; but it has been found 
impossible to exclude them when relating per- 
sonal experiences. \ 

A word as to the frontispiece. The idea of 
publishing his counterfeit presentment occurred to 
the Author recently, on discovering that a hide- 
ous full-page caricature of himself (purporting 
to be a portrait) had appeared in a London peri- 
odical. 

Portland Club, August, 1879. 



CONTENTS. 



CARD ESSAYS:— page 

Whist uersus Chess 3 

Ox THE Morality of Card-Playing . . , 16 
On the Origin and Development of Cards and 
Card -Games . . . . . . . .46 

Bibliography ....... 79 

On the Etymology of Whist . .81 

Duties on Playing-Cards 95 

Moliere on Piquet 114 

The Duffer's Whist Maxims .... 122 
DECISIONS OF THE LATE MR. CLAY . . .129 
CARD.TABLE TALK 165 



I 



i 

i 



CARD ESSAYS. 



WHIST versus CHESS. 



As for the Chesse, I think it over-fond, because it is too 
over-wise and philosophicke a folly." — Basilicon Doron. 

*' What Game indeed, of all the numerous list, 
In point of beauty, can compare to Whist ?" 
— Whist ^ a Poem in twelve Cantos ^ by Alexander Thomson, 

Canto v., 1. 27, 28. 

Whist and Chess have often been compared ; 
generally to the disadvantage of the former. The 
votaries of Caissa are loth to admit that any other 
indoor game will bear comparison with Chess. 
Let us see what can be said in favor of Whist. 

It will be admitted that some games possess a 
higher generic character than others, just as, in 
literature, epics rank above ballads. Both Whist 
and Chess are placed, by common consent, so to 
speak, in the epic class, and probably, as regards 
sedentary games, those two only. If, then, we 
inquire what game it is that, in largeness of con^ 



ception and in fitness for purposes of recreation, 
transcends every other, the reply will be found by 
comparing the claims of Whist and Chess. 

First, as to the intellectual faculties brought 
into exercise by the two games. Chess may be 
described as a series of analytical problems, in 
which the business of the player having the move 
is to determine his correct play from certain data. 
One mental power only then is requisite for the 
Chess player, viz., the power of analysis. It was 
the possession of this faculty in unusual perfec- 
tion which enabled Deschapelles to beat the best 
players of his time after four days' practice, and 
by what he called a sudden impulse to stamp 
Chess upon his brain. " I mastered the moves,'* 
he said, played with Bernard who had succeeded 
Philidor, as the monarch of the board. I lost the 
first day, and the second, and third ; but I beat 
him even-handed on the fourth, since when I have 
never either advanced or receded. To me. Chess 
has been a single idea, which, once acquired, can- 
not be displaced from its throne, provided the 
intellect remains unimpaired.'* I 

There is no similar experience of Whist having 
been suddenly learnt, though there might be of 
Double Dummy, which, like Chess, presents a 
definite problem for solution. No man, not even 
Deschapelles himself (the finest Whist player, 
according to Clay, the world has ever seen), could 



CARD ESSA YS. 



5 



learn to play Whist tolerably in four days. Des- 
chapelles wrote on this point : A man may play 
Whist for several weeks. He will then find it is 
necessary for him to apply his knowledge for three 
or four years before he discovers how difficult a 
game it is.'* — Traits du Whiste, Fragment du 
Chapitre XV, And the reason is not far to seek. 
In order thoroughly to investigate the theory, and 
to arrive at the principles of Whist, mathematics 
and careful reasoning have to be employed. The 
theory, indeed, may now be learnt readily enough 
from books ; but the practice, to be of the first 
order, involves a great variety of accomplish- 
ments. 

To apply the theory of Whist successfully the 
player must note the peculiarities of partners and 
of opponents ; that is, he must study human 
nature. He must use observation, memory, infer- 
ence, and judgment in such a way as to enable 
himself to trace appearances to their true origin. 
He must be by turns cautious and bold. He 
must exercise watchfulness and tact. He must 
shrewdly shield himself against deception. He 
I must level well-weighed arguments at every card 
I that falls. And in short, as Dr. Pole well ob- 
j serves, he must bring to bear on the game " such 
a general course of thought and action as must 
I be dictated by competent and well-trained mental 
powers.'* 



6 



CARD ESSA YS. 



Deschapelles calls Chess a single idea/' in the 
sense of simple {simplex) ; Whist may, in a simi- 
lar sense, be regarded as a compound idea. 

Now, as to the variety of Whist and Chess. It 
is hardly necessary to state that great variety is 
essential to scientific games, to prevent exhaustion 
by systematic analysis. Variety is also necessary 
to popular games, in order to check repetition, 
and to prevent the interest they excite from flag- 
ging. In variety, both Whist and Chess are 
practically infinite. The possible combinations in 
both games are, humanly speaking, inexhaustible. 
Theoretically, the whole progress of a perfect 
game at Chess is dependent on the move made 
by the first player. And there being twenty 
moves open to him, the number of absolutely per- 
fect games that might be played is twenty. But 
even of these twenty games it cannot be contended 
that all would be of equal excellence, because 
some one or two of the original twenty moves 
ought to be superior to all the others. Practi- 
cally, Chess is not thus limited, because when the 
analytical power of one player fails to conduct 
him to the perfect move, a variation is introduced, 
on which the opponent has in turn to exert his 
powers of analysis, and so on. Hence, without 
seeking to deny that Chess is, for practical pur- 
poses, inexhaustible, it is still the fact that the 
great variety of Chess is not inherent in the game 



CARD ESSAYS. 



7 



itself, but Is due to imperfections in the analytical 
skill of the antagonists. As far as the exercise of 
judgment based on probabilities is concerned, 
Chess is valueless ; because no Chess player would 
hazard a move other than the best suggested by 
his analytical skill, on the chance of the adversa- 
ry's failing to take advantage of his error. Re- 
duction of variety within narrow bounds is conse- 
quently the ultimate limit to which the practice 
of Chess approaches, in proportion as the analyti- 
cal skill of the players increases. 

Though at Whist hands may be grouped so as 
to admit the application of certain principles of 
play to certain sets, no exhaustive demonstration 
of these principles is possible. No proof can be 
given. The student has frequently to be satisfied 
if the reasons in favor of a certain line of play 
appear weighty in themselves, and if none weigh- 
tier can be suggested in support of a contrary 
course ; also, he has often to be contented with 
I the assurance that particular methods of play, 
i having stood the test of time, are generally adopt- 
ed by experienced players. In depth, then. Whist 
may be said to be immeasurable, which Chess is 
not. Moreover, the variety of hands on which a 
Whist player has to exercise his mental powers is 
not only very considerable, but is entirely inde- 
pendent of his volition. Hence at Whist an in- 
definite number of perfect games may be played, 



8 



CARD ESSAYS. 



in the sense of obtaining the best practicable re- 
sult, supposing every card played to be the best 
possible, having regard to calculation and to ob- 
servation. 

The original blindfoldness of the leader at 
Whist with regard to the position of thirty-eight 
of the cards, introduces elements of variety in 
that game altogether different from what is met 
with at Chess. At Whist there is a constant en- 
deavor on the part of one side to arrive at the 
maximum result for their hands, by the use of 
observation, memory, inference, and judgment, 
their play being dependent from trick to trick on 
the inferred position of the unknown from obser- 
vation of the known. There is also a similar con- 
stant endeavor on the part of the other side. 
Here is none of the analytical rigidity which dis- 
tinguishes Chess. The changeableness of the 
known elements to which analysis can be applied 
is one of the special charms of Whist, and it in- 
troduces variety of a kind to which there is no 
parallel in Chess. At Chess, the moves are sug- 
gested by the application of analysis based on 
inspection ; at Whist, the play results from exer- 
cise of judgment, based on observation and in- 
ference. 

The power of the Whist pieces being much 
more limited and defined than that , of the men 
at Chess, the net analytical result in any given 



CARD ESSAYS. 



9 



Whist case is much easier to obtain than in any 
given Chess case ; so in the matter of duration of 
interest, Chess must be allowed to take a position 
above Whist, though it may be questioned 
whether the prolonged strain requisite to play 
Chess well does not remove that game altogether 
out of the category of recreations. 

Next, let us measure the social relations of 
Whist and Chess. Whist is sometimes called an 
unsocial game, because lookers-on are not allowed 
to speak. But Chess equally loves retirement 
and the mute silence,'' and there is no interval at 
Chess, as there is at Whist between the hands, 
when conversation may be freely indulged in. 
There is no cutting in and cutting out, and con- 
sequently no frequent change of adversaries. 
Chess, again, only engages two players instead of 
four. And the fact that Whist is a game of part- 
nership, introduces social elements which are al- 
together wanting at Chess. Owing to this cause, 
the practice of Whist tends to fit the players for 
grappling with the affairs of life. This character- 
istic of Whist has been noticed by several eminent 
writers. Bulwer, himself an accomplished Whist 
player, refers to it in his novel of " Alice." He 
says — " Fate has cut and shuffled the cards for you ; 
the game is yours unless you revoke ; — pardon my 
metaphor, — it is a favorite one ; — I have worn it 
threadbare ; — but life zs so like a rubber at Whist.*' 



10 



CARD ESSAYS, 



Dr. Pole, in illustration of this point, says: — 
Whist is a perfect microcosm — a complete min- 
iature society in itself. Each player has one 
friend, to whom he is bound by the strongest ties 
of mutual interest and sympathy; but he has 
twice the number of enemies against whose ma- 
chinations he is obliged to keep perpetual guard. 
He must give strict adherence to the established 
law^s and conventional courtesies of his social 
circle ; he is called upon for candid and ingenu- 
ous behavior. He must exercise moderation in 
prosperity, patience in adversity, hope in doubt- 
ful fortune, humility when in error, forbearance 
to the faults of his friends, self-sacrifice for his 
allies, equanimity under the success of his adver- 
saries, and general good temper throughout all his 
transactions. His best efforts will sometimes fail, 
and fortune will favor his inferiors ; but sound 
principles will triumph in the end. Is there noth- 
ing in all this analogous to the social conditions of 
ordinary life?'' And again the same writer re- 
marks — Does not the proverb represent the 
clever, successful man as ' playing his cards 

well ' r 

Sir George Lewis, in Methods of Observation 
and Reasoning in Politics," says: — We hear of 
the game of politics, and of moves being made 
on the political board. Practical politics, how- 
ever, do not so much reSemble a game of Chess 



CARD ESSA YS, 



II 



as a game of Whist. In Chess, the position of 
the pieces at the beginning of the game is pre- 
cisely similar for both contending parties, and 
every move is made by the deliberate choice of 
the players. The result depends, therefore, ex- 
clusively on their comparative skill ; chance is al- 
together excluded. In Whist, on the other hand, 
the distribution of the cards depends upon 
chance ; that is to say, it depends upon circum- 
stances not within the control of any of the play- 
ers ; but, with the cards so casually dealt out, 
each player plays according to his free choice. 
The result, therefore, depends partly upon chance, 
or luck as it is called, and partly upon skill. This 
is exactly analogous to the state of things in poli- 
tics. A large number of circumstances upon 
which the practical politician has to act are be- 
yond his control. They are, like a hand at cards, 
dealt out to him by a power which he cannot 
regulate. But he can guide those circumstances 
which are within his power, and the ultimate re- 
sult will depend, partly upon the character of the 
circumstances upon which he has to act, and part- 
ly upon the wisdom, skill, and prudence with 
which he conducts himself in reference to them. 
If the circumstances are very adverse, the utmost 
skill may be unavailing to produce a successful 
result. If they be propitious, he may be success- 
ful with a moderate amount of good manage- 



12 



CARD ESSAYS, 



ment. If the circumstances should be unfavor- 
able, good management will only meet with 
checkered success, and will be no effectual secu- 
rity against occasional reverses, though it will be 
successful in the long-run, and taking together 
both favorable and unfavorable circumstances/' 

From these extracts it would seem that Whist 
possesses higher claims than Chess from a social 
point of view. 

Lastly, as to fitness for the purposes of recrea- 
tion. In simplicity of construction Whist is pe- 
culiarly fortunate. All that is necessary to be 
known before attempting to play is the order of 
the cards, and the facts that the highest card wins 
the trick and that trumps win other suits. Ad- 
miral Burney tells the story of a young man who 
was desirous of learning Whist. On being in- 
formed of the construction of the game, he said — 
" Oh ! if that is all, I shall be able to play as well 
as any one in half an hour.'' If he had said he 
could learn the mise en scene of the game in a few 
minutes he would have been right. 

Chess, though not a game of extreme complex- 
ity, requires more preliminary instruction than 
Whist. To know the moves is considered by 
some persons to be an accomphshment, and as 
regards the amount of " book" requisite to play 
one or the other game fairly well. Whist is a long 
way to the front. 



CARD ESS A YS, 



13 



Then as to the comparative interest excited by 
the two games. To arrive at a just estimate on 
this head we must divide games into three 
classes :— 

1. Games of chance^ such as rouge-et-noir, rou- 
lette, and pitch-and-toss. These are mere vehicles 
for gambling, and excite scarcely any interest un- 
less played for money. 

2. Games into which both skill and chance en- 
ter, or mixed games^ such as whist, piquet, and 
backgammon. These excite more interest than 
games of chance. 

3. Games of skilly such as chess and draughts. 
These excite too much interest. To play well at 
Chess is too hard work. The game of Chess — 
not skittling Chess, but Chess played as it should 
be — instead of being resorted to as a distraction 
and a rehef from toil, is in the hands of real art- 
ists the business of their lives, and, in this sense, 
it can hardly be regarded as a game at all. 

It is, then, to mixed games that we must look 
for the happy medium which excites sufficient but 
not too great interest. To be candid, it must be 
admitted that chance enters too largely into 
Whist to render it a perfect game, owing to the 
preponderance of honors. Clay observes on this 
point that Short Whist is in full vigor, in spite 
of at least one very glaring defect — the undue 
value of the honors, which are pure luck, as com- 



14 



CARD ESSA YS, 



pared with that of the tricks, which greatly de- 
pend on skill. Short Whist bears this mark of its 
hasty and accidental origin. If the change had 
been carefully considered, the honors would have 
been cut in half, as well as the points. Two by 
honors would have counted one point. Four by 
honors would have counted two. Had this been 
so, the game would be perfect, but the advantage 
of skill would be so great as to limit considerably 
the number of players.*' Clay then explains the 
circumstances of the hasty and accidental ori- 
gin*' of Short Whist. He continues: — ''Some 
sixty or seventy years back," that would be about 
the beginning of this century, '' Lord Peterbo- 
rough having one night lost a large sum of money, 
the friends with whom he was playing proposed 
to make the game five points instead of ten, in 
order to give the loser a chance, at a quicker game, 
of recovering his loss." 

It is no secret that the committee appointed in 
1863 to revise the laws of Whist had the question 
of the reduction of honors brought before them ; 
but they feared to make so large an alteration in 
the game, lest the new laws should only meet with 
partial adoption. 

Nevertheless, Whist, with its imperfectly-bal- 
anced complements of skill and chance, goes very 
near to exciting the proper amount of interest. 
The entry of chance into Whist diminishes the 



CARD ESSAYS, 



labor of playing, and varies the faculties of the 
mind called into operation. The combinations 
that ensue afford numerous openings for the em- 
ployment of skill, and watching the chances keeps 
the mental powers pleasantly occupied, while the 
cessation of play between the hands, like the pause 
between the beats of the heart, obviates the ill- 
effect of long-continued effort. 

The objection sometimes brought against Whist, 
that it is a card-game, and that therefore it may 
lead to gambling, does not require serious refuta- 
tion. Chess may be, and often is, played for 
m*oney ; but it is no discredit to any game that it 
may be abused instead of being used. 

Has it not been shown that Whist, as a game, 
possesses claims to be ranked above Chess ? Has 
it not been shown that Whist is calculated to 
promote to the utmost the amusement and relax- 
ation of those employed ? The game of Whist 
may fairly be said to combine the means of inno- 
cent recreation, of healthy excitement, and of ap- 
propriate mental exercise, and thus to fulfil, in the 
highest degree, the purposes for which it was de- 
signed. 



ON THE MORALITY OF 
CARD-PLAYING. 



V* A man, no Shoter (not longe agoo) wolde defende playing 
at Gardes and Disc, if it were honestly used." 

— Toxo^hilusy Roger Ascham. 

" Let Cards, therefore, not be depreciated; an happy inven- 
tion, which, adapted equally to every capacity, removes the in- 
vidious distinctions of nature, bestows on fools the pre-eminence 
of genius, or reduces wit and wisdom to the level of folly." 

— History of Great Britain^ Henry, vol. xii., p. 385. 

In the previous paper it was argued that games 
at their best combine the means of innocent re- 
creation, of healthy excitement, and of appropriate 
mental exercise. A perfect game ought to excite 
such an amount of interest that it may be played 
for its own sake, without needing the stimulus of 
gambling. 

The reason cards are regarded as the gamester's 
stock-in-trade all over the world is, no doubt, that 
they may readily, and in various ways, be made 
to minister to the excitement of " play/' At the 
same time it must not be forgotten that cards 



CARD ESSA F5. 



17 



also minister with equal readiness to the lawful 
amusement of men. But, inasmuch as cards are 
frequently made use of as convenient gambling 
implements, the devil's books" are associated by 
many excellent people, who only regard one side 
of the shield, with all kinds of wickedness. Gam- 
bling, with its concomitants, cheating, quarrelling, 
swearing, and many other vicious habits, have 
been unsparingly attributed to the card table. This 
is a mere consequence of association of ideas. The 
shady doings charged on cards should properly be 
charged on games, whether of cards or not, whose 
exciting element is a stake, the winning or losing 
of which depends on chance. Cards, properly used, 
are seductive, but harmless instruments of social 
relaxation. It is no reason we should refrain 
from playing with cards because other persons 
have made a bad use of them. We might as well 
all become total abstainers because some of our 
countrymen are in the habit of getting drunk. It 
may be regarded as an axiom that the unsatisfac- 
tory associations connected with card-playing have 
arisen solely from the abuse of cards, and not 
from any evil qualities necessarily inherent in 
them. As M. Merlin remarks {Origine des Cartes 
a jouer, Paris, 1869), Cards have not created the 
passion of play ; it has been a moral flaw from 
tlie most remote antiquity. But cards have as- 
sisted iij developing this passion, because they 



i8 



CARD ESSA YS, 



offer it a very manageable and attractive instru- 
ment/* 

The present paper, then, will resolve itself into 
an examination of the morality of playing at any 
game for a stake, and not necessarily of playing 
at card-games for a stake. It will be a convenient 
method of conducting this examination to begin 
by quoting various writers who have recorded 
their opinions on the subject. 

St. Cyprian, in a homily of high antiquity on 
gaming, entitled De Aleatoribiis (probably not 
written by St. Cyprian), calls games of hazard the 
nets of the Devil ; and affirms that they were in- 
vented at the prompting of the evil spirit. The 
writer consequently maintains that whosoever 
plays at such games offers sacrifice to their author, 
and so commits an act of idolatry. Others have 
held similar opinions. Daniel Souter, a Flemish 
clergyman, in a treatise published about the mid- 
dle of the seventeenth century, maintains that all 
games of hazard are contrary to every one of the 
ten commandments ! 

In the latter part of the sixteenth century was 
published ^' A Treatise wherein Dicing, Daucing, 
Vaine Plaies or Enterludes, with other idle pas- 
times, &c., commonly vsed on the Sabboth day, 
are reprooved by the Authoritie of the Worde 
of God and auncient writers. Made Dialogue- 
wise by John Northbrooke. Imprinted at Lon- 



CARD ESSA YS. 



19 



don by Thomas Dawson, for George Bishoppe, 
1 579-" 

The reverend author is very verbose, and rather 
declaims than argues against play. In his address 
to the reader he says — What is a man now a 
daies if he knows not fashions and howe to weare 
his apparell after the best fashion ? to keepe Com- 
panie, and to become Mummers and Dice plaiers, 
and to plaie their twentie, fortie, pr 100./. at 
Gardes, Dice, &c., Post, Cente, Gleke or such 
other games : if he cannot thus do he is called a 
miser, a wretch, a lobbe, a cloune, and one that 
knoweth no fellowship nor fashions, and less hon- 
estie. And by such kind of Plaies many of them 
are brought into great Miserie and Penurie/* 

In the Invective against Dice-plaie'' (and an 
invective it is very properly named), the argu- 
ments, such as they are, amount briefly to this — 
that though honest men play, the persons make 
not the play good, but rather it makes them bad. 
That loss of goods is to be imputed to the play 
as well as to the men, for if you take away the 
means there will be no playing, and it is most dif- 
ficult for a man to restrain the bridle of things 
desired. Dice were invented by Lucifer, the 
Prince of Devils, and dice-play leads to blasphemy, 
robbery, craft, covetousness, deceit, and a list of 
horrors too long to quote, but embracing nearly 
every possible crime. To the question whether 



20 



CARD ESSAYS, 



it IS lawful to play any game for money, the au- 
thor answers in the negative, because play was 
not appointed as a means to get money, but only 
for exercise or recreation ; and whoever uses it 
for gain, abuses and changes the intention; and 
whatever a man wins at play, being naughtily 
gotten, is not his own. As for cards, they are 
almost as bad as dice, but not quite, as wit is 
more used at cards, and less trust in chance and 
fortune. Dice-play is the mother, card-play the 
daughter. They draw, both with one string, all 
the followers thereof into idleness, loitering, blas- 
phemy, misery, infamy, penury, and confusion, 
He then quotes St. Cyprian, and agrees with him 
that cards were invented by the Devil to bring in 
idolatry among men. For the Kings and coate 
cards, he says, were in old times the images and 
idols of false gods. He finally concludes that 
cards and dice are only fit for brutal and ignorant 
men. 

In 1583 was published "The Anatomic of 
Abuses, containing A Discoverie or briefe Sum- 
marie of such notable Vices and Corruptions as 
now raigne in many Christian Countreyes of the 
World ; but especially in the Countrey of AlLGNA 
[Anglia, England]. Together with the most feare- 
full Examples of God's Judgments executed upon 
the Wicked for the same, as well in Ailgnia of 
late as in other Places elsewhere. Made Dialogue- 



CARD ESSAYS, 



21 



Wise by Philip Stubs.** In the person of Philo- 
ponus, he remarks — " As for Cards, Dice, Tables, 
Boules, Tennise and such like, thei are Furta 
Officiosa, a certaine kind of smoothe, deceipt-fuU 
and sleightie thefte, whereby many a one is spoiled 
of all that he ever hath, sometimes of his life with- 
all, yea, of bodie and soule for ever: and yet 
(more is the pitie) these bee the only exercises 
used in every mans house, al the yere through. 
But especially in Christmas Time, there is nothing 
els used but Cardes, Dice, Tables, Maskyng, 
Mummyng, Bouling, and such like fooleries. And 
the reason is, thei think thei have a commission 
and prerogative that tyme to doe what thei list, 
and to followe what vanitie thei will. But (alas) 
doe thei thinke that thei are privileged at that 
tyme to doe evill ? the holier the tyme is (if one 
tyme were holier than another, as it is not) the 
holier ought their exercises to bee/* 

Nevertheless, he allows that men may some- 
times play at games for recreation, but not for 
money. Being asked by Spudeus, Is it not 
lawful! for one Christian man to plaie with an 
other at any kinde of Game, or to winne his 
money, if he can ?'* he replies, To plaie at Tables, 
Cardes, Dice, Boules or the like (though a good 
Christian man will not so idely and vainely spend 
his golden dales), one Christian with another, for 
their private recreations, after some oppression of 



22 



CARD ESSAYS. 



studle, to drive awaie fantasies, and suche like, 1 
doubt not but thei may, using it moderately, with 
intermission, and in the feare of God. But for to 
plaie for lucre of gaine, and for desire onely of his 
brother s substance, rather than for any other 
cause, is at no hande lawfull, or to be suffered. 
For as it is not lawfull to robbe, steale, and pur- 
loine by deceite or sleight, so it is not lawfull to 
get thy brother*s goodes from hym by Cardyng, 
Dicyng, Tablyng, Boulying, or any other kind of 
theft, for these games are no better, nay worser 
than open theft, for open theft every man can be- 
ware of ; but this beying a craftie, polliticke theft, 
and commonly doen under pretence of freendship, 
fewe, or none at all, can beware of it. The Com- 
maudement saieth. Thou shalt not covet nor de- 
sire anything that belongeth to thy neighbour. 
Now, it is manifest that those that plaie for 
money, not onely covet their brother^s money, but 
also use craft, falsehood, and deceite to winne the 
same.'* 

At the end of the sixteenth century, James 
Balmford, a Puritanical clergyman, or as he would 
now be called, a Low Churchman, published a 
pamphlet of sixteen pages, called " A short and 
plain Dialogue concerning the Unlawfulness of 
playing at Cards or Tables,'' 1593, dedicated to 

Master Lionel Maddison, Maior, the Aldermen \ 
his brethern, and the godly Burgesses of New- 



CARD MSSAVl 



Castle-upon-Tine." The characters introduced by 
the author are a Professor and a Preacher. It 
appears that the Professor had read, in the Com- 
mon-places'' of Peter Martyr, a statement that 
dice-playing is unlawful, because it depends on 
chance. But as he was not convinced by this 
that playing at tables,'' i,e. backgammon, tric- 
trac, etc., is unlawful (skill being then introduced), 
he craves the Preacher's opinion concerning the 
lawfulness of tables and cards. The Preacher, 
who, we may presume, represents the author's 
view, strongly objects to these games on moral 
grounds, and determines that all such games are 
unlawful in the following words : — Lots are not 
to be used in Sport ; but Games, consisting in 
Chance, as Dice, Cards, are Lots; therefore, not 
to be used in Sport." He then refers to Joshua 
xviii. lo ; i Samuel xiv. 41 ; Jonah i. 7 ; Malachi 
i. 6, 7; and Hebrews vi. 16, in confirmation of his 
view. Joshua xviii., however, hardly supports 
the Preacher's doctrine, as there lots are cast be- 
fore the Lord," i.e. with the sanction of the Most 
High, to determine the division of the land of 
several of the tribes. The Preacher gets out of 
this difficulty by admitting that Lots are sancti- 
fied to a peculiar use, viz., to end controversies, 
by which he probably means to prevent quarrel- 
ling. But he carefully omits any reference to the 
casting of lots for the sacrifice (Lev. xvi. 8), where 



24 



CARD ESSAYS, 



the plea of ending controversies will not help 
him. 

Finally, the Preacher condemns all games which 
depend on chance ; and he further refuses to coun- 
tenance games at all, even if played for amuse- 
ment only ; for, even granting that such games 
are lawful, he is of opinion that the desire of 
gain would soon creep in, according to the com- 
mon saying, Sine lucro friget ludiis'' 

A little later, 1610, WiUiam Ames, fellow of 
Christ^s College, preached at St. Mary*s against 
cards and dice, as being forbidden by Scripture ; 
but his sermon gave much offence, and he was 
obliged to withdraw from the University to avoid 
expulsion. 

Gisbert Voet also supported Balmford and 
Ames. 

As at this time party feeling ran strong be- 
tween the Puritans and the High Churchmen, the 
views of the former could not be passed over in 
silence. Accordingly in 1619 the learned Thomas 
Gataker published his well-known treatise **On 
the Nature and Use of Lots," in which he com- 
bats the opinions of Balmford and others. He 
classes Lots under three heads: — i. Lots which 
are commonly employed in serious affairs ; 2. 
Lots which enter into games of chance ; ahd 3. 
Lots extraordinary or divinatory. 

Gataker considers Lots of the first kind to be 



CARD jESSAVS. 



^5 



innocent. The third class he condemns, except 
they are expressly required to be used by a rev- 
elation or Divine command. As to Lots which 
enter into games, with which we are principally 
concerned in this paper, Gataker thinks they were 
neither prohibited by the Scriptures nor evil in 
themselves. He candidly admits that they are 
liable to great abuse ; but, while he earnestly 
deprecates such abuse, he argues forcibly that it 
is not a necessary consequence of the employ- 
ment of Lots in games played for amusement. 

The controversy thus started raged for some 
time, both sides retaining their own views. A 
summary of the whole affair is given in the pre- 
face to the second edition of Traite du Jeu, ok 
Von examine les principales Questions de Droit nat- 
urel et de Morale, qui out du Rapport a cette Ma- 
tier e. Par Jean Barbeyrac, Professeur en Droit a 
Groningue^' 1738- The first edition was published 
in 1710. It is said that Barbeyrac was induced to 
write the work in consequence of being frequent- 
ly appealed to by ladies who came to play cards 
with his mother-in-law, with whom he resided. 

In his preface, Barbeyrac says: — I am not 
surprised that Gataker should have been violently 
opposed when he maintained the lawfulness of 
lots, considering the date at which he wrote. It, 
however, appears strange to me that, in an age 
when so many philosophical and theological pre- 



26 



CARD ESSAYS. 



judices have been shaken off, people can still be 
found, who, regarding only the abuse which may 
arise out of the use of things which are harmless 
in themselves, condemn them as absolute evils, 
on frivolous or extremely doubtful grounds. Such 
condemnation is more likely to confirm abuse than 
to correct it * for, a favorite passion is 

apt to acquire fresh vigor if a pretext for its in- 
dulgence is discovered in the weakness of the ar- 
guments with which it is assailed. ^ \ great- 
ly doubt whether a gamester was ever deterred 
from play by arguments brought forward to per- 
suade him that his practices contravene the ordi- 
nances of Divine Providence.'' 

The following is a short analysis of Barbeyrac's 
" solid reasons'' for approving of play : — Man was 
not sent into the world by the Creator to pass his 
time in eating, drinking, and merry-making, but to 
be employed in matters of utility and serious con- 
sideration. He has no right to waste his mental 
powers by remaining idle, nor in perpetual rounds 
of dissipation and amusement. He is bound to 
do some kind of work or other ; and even if he 
has the means of living without labor, he still 
ought to find some creditable employment, to 
render himself a useful member of society. 

Man, however, was not created to labor inces- 
santly without relaxation. The human machine 
soon gets out of order if worked too hard. The 



CAJ^D ESSA VS. 



ancients said, ^^Take recreation in order to make 
progress with work," and Rest is the seasoning 
of labor/' The day and night mark out hours 
of labor and repose, and teach us that each is 
equally indispensable. Morality and Religion re- 
quire us to take innocent pleasures; and it is un- 
just to condemn those who do so discreetly. 

But there are people who fancy that use and 
abuse are inseparable ; and, forming mystical no- 
tions of virtue and piety, would have us reject all 
kinds of diversion, as being unworthy of reason- 
ing creatures. Such persons aspire to a state 
of perfection unattainable by human nature. I 
maintain, then, we may indulge in amusements 
that are themselves free from vice. If a person 
finds pleasure in playing at billiards, chess, cards, 
backgammon, or even with dice, why may he not 
amuse himself with them as well as in promenad- 
ing, with music, in the chase, in fishing, in draw- 
ing, and in a thousand similar ways? 

The question then remains, Is the game to be 
for nothing or for a stake of some value? If 
there is no stake there can be no semblance of 
criminality; and, if there is a stake, I do not 
see any evil, if we look at the matter in a proper 
light. 

Barbeyrac's arguments are so far good. But 
when he comes to the conclusion that games are 
not immoral whether the stakes are large or small, 



CARD ESSAYS, 



he takes a view which is indefensible. He con- 
tinues thus : — If I am at liberty to promise and 
give my property to whomsoever I choose, why 
may I not promise and give a certain sum in the 
event of another person proving more fortunate 
or more skilful than I am, with respect to the re- 
sult of certain combinations previously agreed 
on ? Why may not this person avail himself of 
skill or fortune on an issue about which we volun- 
tarily contract an obligation ? Every person is 
at liberty to cede property to another, the ces- 
sion being dependent on fortuitous circumstances. 
Hence a person may fairly win if he himself risks 
the loss of as much as he can gain on the event. 
In fact, play is a kind of contract ; and in every 
contract the will of the parties is the supreme 
law. 

Barbeyrac is here in error. Persons are re- 
strained by law (which may be taken to repre- 
sent the moral sense of the community), from 
ceding their property to others except for a con- 
sideration. People who enter into contracts that 
are contrary to the usages of society, or which 
are opposed to the laws of the country in which 
they reside, are not compelled to fulfil these con- 
tracts. If the loser of a wager refuses to pay his 
losses, the law will not assist the winner to en- 
force payment. And very properly so ; for to 
hold the loser to the original bargain would, as a 



CARD ESSAYS, 



29 



rule, inflict a greater injury on society than allow- 
ing him to repudiate it. 

Barbeyrac's work has been introduced out of 
its chronological order, as it completes the con- 
troversy on the nature and use of lots. 

We now go back to the beginning of the seven- 
teenth century. In 161 5, a curious Rabbinical 
tract on gaming, called " Sur Mera*' (Depart from 
Evil), was printed at Venice. The name of the 
author is not known. It is in the form of a dia- 
logue between two young Jews — Medad, who 
maintains the lawfulness of gaming, and Eldad, 
who is opposed to play." 

Medad says that ^^play" is commendable, for it 
causes men to forget the cares of daily life. In 
commerce, things pass from one to another by way 
of barter or sale, and why should not play" be 
estimated the same as any other business, at which 
money is sometimes lost and sometimes gained ? 

Eldad answers that traffic, or commerce, is pro- 
ductive of benefit to both the buyer and seller, 
on which Medad observes that merchants will buy 
and lock up corn or wine, and then look to Hea- 
ven for the signs of bad weather, and rejoice at 
the storm which destroys the vintage and crops 
of the year, because the holder will thus be en- 
riched. He asks triumphantly. Is there any mu- 
tual benefit in this, when one man's profit depends 
on the injury of the rest of the world? 



30 CARD ESSAYS. i 

Eldad replies that this is not fair trade ; it is 
mere speculation, which is in fact gambling. 

In the remainder of the tract, Eldad endeavors 
to show that a gamester breaks all the ten com- 
mandments, and that, according to the Talmud, 
he can neither be a judge nor a witness. Medad 
answers, and cites opposite passages. Then they 
recite poetry, in which the miseries and the pleas- 
ures of a gamester's life are set forth by each ; and 
finally, of course, Medad yields, and admits that 
the cause he had maintained is bad. 

In the middle of the seventeenth century, Jere- 
my Taylor published his opinions on play." In 
the words of Archdeacon Butler, Taylor was one 
of the most truly pious and most profoundly 
learned prelates that ever adorned any age or 
country ; nor,'* adds the Archdeacon, do I think 
that the most rigid of our disciplinarians can pro- 
duce the authority of a wiser or a better man.'' 

On the Question on Gaming, Whether or no 
the making and providing such instruments which 
usually minister to it, is by interpretation such an 
aid to the sin as to involve us in the guilt?" the 
Bishop writes as follows : — 

Many fierce declamations from ancient sanctity 
have been uttered against cards and dice by rea- 
son of the craft used in the game, and the conse- 
quent evils, as invented by the Devil. And, in- 
deed, this is almost the whole state of the ques- 



CARD ESSAYS. 



31 



tion, for there are so many evils in the use of 
these sports ; they are made trades of fraud and 
Hvelihood ; they are accompanied so with drinking 
and swearing ; they are so scandalous by blasphe- 
mies and quarrels ; so infamous by misspending 
precious time, and the ruin of many families ; 
they so often make wise men fools and slaves of 
passion, that we may say of those who use them 
inordinately that they are in an ocean of mischief, 
and can hardly swim to shore without perishing. 
But that cards are themselves lawful, I do not 
know any reason to doubt. He can never be sus-^ 
pected in any criminal sense to tempt Divine 
Providence, who by contingent things recreates 
his labor, and, having acquired his refreshment^ 
hath no other end to serve, and no desires to en- 
gage the Divine Providence to any other purpose. 

^ A man may innocently, and to good 
purposes go to a tavern ; but they who frequent 
them have no excuse unless their innocent busi- 
ness does frequently engage, and their severe 
Religion bring them off safely. And so it is in 
i these sports ; there is only one cause of using them, 
and that comes but seldom, the refreshment, I 
mean, of myself or my friend, to which I minister 
in justice or in charity. But when our sports come 
to that excess, that we long and seek for opportu- 
nities ; when we tempt others, are weary of our 
business and not weary of our game ; when we 



32 



CARD ESSAYS, 



sit up till midnight, and spend half-days, and that 
often too ; then we have spoiled the sport — it 
is not a recreation but a sin. » * ^ He that 
means to make his games lawful must not play 
for money, but for refreshment. This, though 
few may believe, yet is the most considerable' 
thing to be amended in the games of civil and 
sober persons. For the gaining of money can 
have no influence in the game to make it the 
more recreative, unless covetousness holds the 
box. * * But when money is at stake, 
either the sum is trifling, or it is considerable. If 
trifling it can be of no purpose, unless to serve the 
ends of some little hospitable entertainment or 
love-feast, and then there is nothing amiss ; but if 
considerable, a wide door is opened to temptation, 
and a man cannot be indifferent to win or lose a 
great sum of money, though he can easily pretend 
it. If a man be willing or indifferent to lose his 
own money, and not at all desirous to get an- 
other's, to what purpose is it that he plays for it? 
If he be not indifferent, then he is covetous, or 
he is a fool ; he covets what is not his own, or un- 
reasonably ventures that which is. If without the 
money he cannot mind his game, then the game 
is no divertisement, no recreation ; but the money 
is all the sport, and therefore covetousness is all 
the design. But if he can be recreated by the 
game alone, the money does not change it from 



CARD ESSAYS. 



lawful to unlawful, and the man from being weary- 
to become covetous ; and, from the trouble of la- 
bor or study, remove him to the worse trouble 
of fear, or anger, or impatient desires. Here be- 
gins the mischief ; here men begin, for the money, 
to use vile arts ; here cards and dice begin to be 
diabolical, when players are witty to defraud and 
undo one another; when estates are ventured and 
families are made sad and poor by a luckless chance. 
And what sport is it to me to lose my money, if it 
be at all valuable? and if it be not, what is it to 
my game? But sure, the pleasure is in winning 
the money ; that certainly is it. But they who 
make a pastime of a neighbor's ruin, are the 
worst of men, said the comedy. But concerning 
the loss of our money, let a man pretend what he 
will, that he plays for no more than he is willing 
to lose, it is certain that we ought not to beheve 
him ; for if that sum is so indifferent to him, why 
is he not easy to be tempted to give such a sum 
to the poor? Whenever this is the case, he sins 
"that games for money beyond an inconsiderable 
sum. Let the games be nothing, or almost noth- 
ing, and the cards or dice are innocent, and the 
game as innocent as push-pin. -J^ ^ In plays 
and games, as in other entertainments, we must 
neither do evil, nor seem to do evil ; we must not 
converse with evil persons, nor use our liberty to 
a brother's prejudice or grief. We must not do 



34 



CARD ESSA YS, 



anything which he, with probability, or with inno- 
cent weakness, thinks to be amiss, until he is 
rightly instructed ; but, where nothing of these 
things intervene, and nothing of the former evils 
is appendant, we may use our liberty with reason 
and sobriety ; and then, if this liberty can be so 
used, and such recreations can be innocent, as 
they assuredly may, there is no further question 
but those trades which minister to these divertise- 
ments are innocent and lawful." 

The whole of this passage is truly admirable ; 
but, if one may venture to criticise so eminent a 
writer, two objections may be made to it. The 
one is that there is a use in a stake, independent- 
ly of winning or losing it, as will appear hereafter ; 
the other is, that the Bishop fails to perceive the 
distinction between the amount risked on each 
game, and the expectation (as it is termed in 
mathematics) of gain or loss on a series of games. 
Most people who play cards at all can afford to 
play sixpenny points at whist; but it does not fol- 
low that they could afford to give half-a-crown to 
the poor at the conclusion of every rubber (about 
the average result), whether they won or lost it. 
The player expects to win some rubbers and to 
lose others ; and at the end of a considerable num- 
ber of rubbers played, say during a twelvemonth, 
he expects to be in or out of pocket at most a few 
pounds, which he can well afford, if he loses, to 



CARD ESSA YS. 



35 



pay for his amusement. If he wins, and has any 
conscientious scruples about the lawfulness of re- 
taining money won at play (Luther was of opin- 
ion that it might be lawfully retained), he may, 
like Parson Dale in My Novel," treat himself to 
the additional gratification of distributing it in 
charity. 

St. Francis de Sales, according to the Me- 
moir es sur la Cour de Louis XIV et de la R^gence^' 
(Paris, 1823,) went so far as to cheat at cards, and 
excused himself for so doing, by saying that what- 
ever he won was for the poor ! When the Arch- 
bishop of Aix learnt that St. Francis was about to 
be canonised, he said he was delighted to hear of 
his good fortune, ' quoiquil il trichat au piquet' 
* Mais, Monseigneur,' lui dit-on ' est4l possible quun 
Saint friponne au jeu ? ' * Hoy repliqua VArcheve- 
que, * il disait, pour ses raisons, que ce qiiil gagnait 
^tait pour les pauvres' St. Francis does not ap- 
pear to have been very particular nor very con- 
sistent ; for later in life he condemned all games 
at cards as being " simply and naturally bad and 
reprehensible/' 

John Locke, in his Treatise on Education," 
1693, says- — ^*As to cards and dice, I think the 
safest and best way is never to learn any play 
upon them, and so to be incapacitated for those 
dangerous temptations and incroaching wasters of 
useful time." 



36 



CARD ESSA VS. 



Robert Nelson, a learned and pious English 
gentleman, author of ''A Companion for the 
Fasts and Festivals of the Church of England,*' 
and of the Practice of True Devotion,'' 1708, 
says in the latter work, Sober persons do not 
make a business of what they should use as a 
diversion." Hence he considers there is no objec- 
tion to cards played for amusement. 

Addison, however, about the same time (171 1), 
in No. 93 of the Spectator, on Proper Methods 
of Employing Time," held the opposite view. 
He says, I must confess I think it is below 
reasonable creatures to be altogether conversant 
in such diversions as are merely innocent, and 
have nothing else to recommend them, but that 
there is no hurt in them. Whether any kind of 
gaming has even this much to say for itself, I 
shall not determine ; but I think it very wonder- 
ful to see persons of the best sense passing away 
a dozen hours together in shufifling and dividing a 
pack of cards, with no other conversation but 
what is made up of a few game phrases, and no 
other ideas but those of black or red spots ranged 
together in different figures. Would not a man 
laugh to hear one of this species complaining that 
Hfe is short?" 

Jeremy Collier, in his Essay on Gaming," 
1713, which takes the form of a dialogue between 
Dolomedes and Callimachus (the author), ex- 



CARD ESSAYS. 



37 



presses his opinions (which are here condensed), as 
follows : — 

Deep play sets the spirits on float, strikes the 
mind strongly into the face, and discovers a man*s 
weakness very remarkably. You may see the 
passions come up with the dice, and ebb and flow 
with the fortune of the game. The sentence for 
execution is not received with more concern than 
the unlucky appearance of a cast or a card. Some 
people are miserably ruffled, and distressed to an 
agony ; others are no less foolishly pleased, and 
so bring their covetous humor into view. Why 
then resign repose of mind and credit of temper 
to the mercy of chance ? 

Dolomedes then points out that some people 
play without the least ruffle, and lose great sums 
with decency and indifference. 

Callimachus replies this is merely a copy of the 
countenance, things being not so smooth within 
as without. The anguish is concealed. But if 
the players are really unconcerned and a heavy 
blow brings no smart, the case is worse. Such 
stoicism is the speediest despatch to beggary. It 
makes the man foolhardy and renew the combat. 
But it is rarely met with. When misfortune 
strikes home, the temper generally goes with the 
money, according to the proverb, Qui perd le 
sien, perd le sens." One loss makes people des- 
perate, and leads to another ; the head grows 



38 



CARD ESSA YS. 



misty with ill-luck, and the man becomes an easier 
conquest. When your bubbles are going down 
the hill, you lend them a push, though their bones 
are broken at the bottom. 

When things, with a promising face, sicken, the 
spirits of your gaming sparks are up immediately ; 
they are a storm at the first blast, the train takes 
fire like gunpowder. Then, nothing is more com- 
mon than oaths and execrable language. Instead 
of blaming their own rashness, they curse their 
stars, and rage against their fate, and these par- 
oxysms sometimes run so high, you would think 
the Devil had seized the organs of speech ; and 
these hideous sallies are sometimes carried on to 
quarrelling and murder. The hazards of play are 
frightful ; a box and dice are terrible artillery. 

In the Reminiscences" of the Rev. R. Pol- 
whele, 1 773, occurs a letter from Augustus Toplady, 
a clergyman and a high Calvinist, approving of 
cards and other games, and stating his opinion 
that the clergy may innocently indulge in various 
recreations. He says — I do not think that 
honest Martin Luther committed sin by playing 
at Backgammon for an hour or two after dinner, 
in order, by unbending his mind, to promote 
digestion. 

I cannot blame the holy martyr, Bishop Rid- 
ley, for frequently playing at Tennis before he 
became a prelate, nor for playing at the more 



CARD ESSAYS. 



39 



serious game of Chess twice a day, after he was 
made a bishop. 

As Httle do I find fault with another of our 
most exemplary martyrs, the learned and devout 
Mr. Archdeacon Philpot, who has left it on record, 
as a brand on Pelagians of that age, that ' they 
looked on honeste pastyme as a sinne and had 
the impudence to call him an Antinomian and a 
loose moralist, because he now and then relaxed 
his bow with ^ huntynge, shootynge, bowlynge, 
and such like.' 

Nor can I set down pious Bishop Latimer for 
such an enemy to holiness of life, on account of 
his saying that hunting is a good exercise for men 
of rank, and that shooting is as lawful an amuse- 
ment for persons of inferior class. 

" I have not a whit the worse opinion of the 
eminent and profound Mr. Thomas Gataker, for 
the Treatise which he professedly wrote to prove 
the lawfulness of card playing, under due restric- 
tions and limitations. 

^ ^ ^ ^ 

*^ I cannot condemn the Vicar of Broad Hem- 
bury \i.e, himself] for relaxing himself now and 
then among a few select friends with a rubber of 
sixpenny Whist, a pool of penny Quadrille, or a 
few rounds of twopenny Pope-Joan. To my cer- 
tain knowledge, the said Vicar has been cured of 
headache by one or other of those games, after 



40 



CARD ESSAYS. 



Spending eight, ten, or twelve, and sometimes six- 
teen hours in his study. Nor will he ask any 
man's leave for so unbending himself, — because 
another person's conscience is no rule to his, 
any more than another person's stature or com- 
plexion." 

Dr. Johnson (^^ Tour to the Hebrides," 1785) 
regretted he had not learnt to play at cards, giv- 
ing as his reason, It is very useful in life ; it 
generates kindness and consolidates society." 
This reminds one of Talleyrand's mot respecting 
Whist, *^Vous ne savez pas done le Whiste, jeune 
homme. Quelle triste vieillesse vous vous pr^- 
parez !" 

John Wilson, Professor of Moral Philosophy in 
the University of Edinburgh, was in favor of 
card-games, if we may assume that he expresses 
his own sentiments in the Nodes Ambrosiance, 
1826. The dialogue on gaming, between himself 
and the Ettrick Shepherd, may thus be summed 
up :— 

There are families, especially austere Calvinists, 
who abhor cards, and their principles ought to be 
respected. Nevertheless, old people, a little dim- 
eyed or so, might do much worse than while away 
an occasional evening at an innocent and cheerful 
game at cards. It is true that cards are not abso- 
lutely necessary, but unless people are greedy and 
play for the pool, there is no objection to them. 



CARD ESSAYS. 



41 



Indeed, among the leisured classes, card-playing 
in moderation is harmless. But as for " Hells" 
(or gaming houses) they cannot be too severely 
condemned. 

William Andrew Chatto, discussing the moraHty 
of card-playing in his " Facts and Speculations on 
Playing-Cards," 1848, says — " Most persons who 
play for high stakes, either at games of pure 
chance, or of chance and skill combined, make 
more or less a traffic of their amusement ; and 
risk their own money from a desire of winning 
that of another. In all such cases gaming is a 
positive evil to society, and is utterly inexcusable, 
much less justifiable, on any grounds whatever ; 
and all who thus venture large sums may be justly 
required to show by what right they possess them. 
When a fool or a knave is thus stripped of a large 
property, his loss is a matter of small import to 
society ; the true evil is, that so large a portion of 
national wealth, created by the industry of others, 
should be at the disposal of such a character, and 
should be allowed to pass, on such a contract, to 
another even more worthless than himself. This 
objection has not been urged in any of the numer- 
ous sermons and essays that have been pubHshed 
against gaming ; the authors of which generally, 
instead of showing that society has both the power 
and the right to correct such abuses, by depriving 
the offending parties of the means of continuing 



42 



CARD £SSA VS. 



them, have contented themselves with declama- 
tions on the wickedness of the pursuit, and with 
vain appeals to the conscience of inveterate 
gamesters : while they whistle to the deaf adder, 
they never seem to suspect that it may be easily 
despatched with a stick." 

While some few authorities condemn games of 
all kinds, the great majority approve of games 
played in moderation, and even for a small stake, 
if the chief idea of the players is mental or bodily 
refreshment. Only one writer is bold enough not 
to denounce unlimited stakes, and he has already 
been dealt with. 

The great difficulty seems to be this: — If the 
game in itself is sufficiently interesting to keep the 
players pleasantly occupied, and to afford materi- 
als for innocent and healthy enjoyment, why play 
for a stake at all ? 

None of the quoted writers have answered this 
question. Mr. Richard A. Proctor, in T/ie Echo 
of July 17, 1878, says, I cannot see the sense of 
playing for insignificant stakes. It is only when 
the stakes are large enough to be more than the 
player can afford that any excitement can be add- 
ed to the pleasure which a good game like Whist 
affords in itself. And when once the stakes are 
allowed to attain such an amount, the play be- 
comes gambling.'' 

Mr. Proctor thinks the reason may be that it is 



CARD ESSAYS. 



43 



customary to play for something, and that conse- 
quently people must either fall in with the custom 
or abstain from playing. 

This, however, is only a statement of the fact, 
not an explanation of it. Inasmuch as games are 
almost invariably played for a stake, and that by 
persons who have no desire of gain, there must be 
a reason for the custom. 

The explanation appears to be this. The use 
of a small stake is to define the interest. It is not 
the amount dependent on the family rubber or 
friendly game at bilhards that increases the pleas- 
ure of the players ; indeed, many people who play 
Whist for sixpenny points or back themselves for 
a shilling at billiards would feel very uncomforta- 
ble, and have their pleasure diminished if a large 
sum hung on the result. But there is just the dif- 
ference between playing for something or for no- 
thing that there is between purpose and no pur- 
pose. If we walk or ride we do not go round and 
round in a circle. We go out if possible with a 
purpose, to visit some person or place. We have 
perhaps no particular reason to take one direction 
rather than another; but we feel more interest in 
our walk or ride if we have a definite object in 
view. 

Then comes the point, What do you mean by a 
small stake? Where does defining interest end 
and gambling begin ? 



44 



CARD ESSAYS, 



Each individual must decide this for himself. 
It depends mainly on the means of the players. 
As long as it is a matter of indifference to those 
engaged whether they win or lose the amount 
staked, having regard also to their expectation on 
a series, so long are they without the pale of gam- 
bling. The moment any anxiety is felt as to the 
fate of the sum depending on the result, the sooner 
the stakes are reduced the better. It is clear that 
if half-starved street Arabs toss for coppers they 
are gambling. It is equally clear that if two well- 
to-do friends toss which of them shall pay for a 
split brandy-and-soda, they are not gambling. To 
pursue this still further ; if a clerk earning a hun- 
dred a year backs his fancy for the Derby for ten 
pounds, he is gambling; but if a wealthy owner 
of race-horses puts the same sum on his favorite 
two-year-old, he is not gambling. To the one ten 
pounds is an object; to the other it is a mere 
trifle. 

The good sense of the community generally 
fixes the stakes at a reasonable sum, in accordance 
with the view just propounded. Thus, at Whist, 
the domestic rubber may be played for postage- 
stamps or for silver three-pennies ; in general so- 
ciety, shillings, with perhaps an extra half-crown 
on the rubber, are common enough ; while at the 
Clubs, where money flows more easily, half-crown 
or crown points are the ruling prices. At crack 



CARD ESSAYS. 



Clubs, where many of the members are men of 
wealth, higher points are, of course, to be met 
with. 

No doubt there is a temptation to men of mod- 
erate income to play high when they have the 
entree into circles where money is played for. For 
example: De Jones is a man of family, and as 
such a member of the Coronet Club where the 
usual stakes are twos and tens. But De Jones is 
a younger son, and his income may be reckoned 
on three fingers. If De Jones is so fond of a rub- 
ber that he must wander into the card-room of the 
Coronet, he ought to retire from the club and join 
another club where the points are lower. His po- 
sition, however, as a tempted man is not peculiar ; 
there are temptations in every path of life as well 
as at the card-table. There is the temptation to 
the merchant to trade beyond his capital ; to the 
banker or broker to speculate in various securities ; 
to the man of property to live expensively and 
beyond his income. But no one will argue hence 
that commercial pursuits or good investments, or 
the possession of private means are in themselves 

I evils ; properly employed, they are blessings. 

I And thus we return to the point from which we 
set out, viz., that card-playing in common with 
almost all occupations and amusements, may be 
wisely and honestly used, or fooHshly and wicked- 
ly abused. 



ON THE ORIGIN AND 
DEVELOPMENT OF CARDS AND 
CARD-GAMES. 



* Di quelle carte, e di quel mazzo strano, 
L'origine cercando, e il primo arcano." 

— // Guioco delle Carte ^ Bettinelli, Poema, Canto L 

" II est impossible de dire, prenant un jeu quelconque, qu'il 
a 6t6 invent^ en telle ann^e, par un tel. C'est tantot Tun et 
tantot I'autre qui s'avise ajouter quelques regies ^ un vieux jeu, 
d'en changer le nom ; des amis adoptent ; quelques soci6t6s ^ 
la suite, et voil^ une invention." 

—Les Cartes h jouer, Paul Boiteau D'Amblv. 

** 'Spect I growed."— ^V/jjj/, in Unde Tom's Cabin. 



According to the best authorities there is no 
trustworthy evidence of the existence of playing- 
cards more than five hundred years ago. Some 
writers have attempted to show that playing- 
cards were anciently known in India and China, 
whence they were imported to Europe ; but 
MerHn and Willshire, the most recent authors on 
the History of Playing-Cards, are of opinion that 



CARD ESSAYS, 



47 



the presence of cards in Europe is due to an 
original invention, and not to importation. 

The theory of the oriental origin of cards rests 
mainly on the foUqwing grounds : — 

1, That cards were known among the Arabs, 
Saracens, or Moors, who introduced them into 
Europe by way of Spain. Covelluzzo, who wrote 
about the end of the fifteenth century, is report- 
ed by Feliciano Bussi {Istoria della Citta di Viter- 
bo, History of the City of Viterbo, Roma, 1743) 
to have stated as follows: — ^' Anno iiyg, fu re- 
cat in Viterbo el gioco delle Carti, che venne de 
Seracenia e chiamasi tra loro Naib,'' that is, In 
the year 1379, was brought into Viterbo the 
game of Cards, which comes from the country of 
the Saracens, and is with them called Naib^ 
The assertion of the Saracenic origin of cards 
has no value beyond that of the personal opinion 
of Covelluzzo, or of an opinion prevalent when 
he wrote. Covelluzzo was not contemporaneous 
with the date mentioned, for his Chronicle termi- 
nates in 1480, a century later than the date he 
gives. Moreover, Covelluzzo, though followed 
and quoted by Bussi, was by him regarded as a 
credulous person. 

2. That cards made their way into Europe 
from India, by means of the Gipsies, who carried 
cards with them for the purposes of divination 



48 CAMD ESSA YS. 

and fortune-telling, and that the Moors obtained i 

cards from the Gipsies. | 

The answer to this supposition is that the Gip- f 

sies (whether they are of Egyptian origin, or ^ 

whether they sprung from the Suders of Hindu- j 

Stan who migrated at the period of Timur Beg) I 

did not appear in Europe before 141 7, when j 

cards had been in use for some time. 1 

3. That cards had their source in Egypt. I 
Those who adopt this view recognize in Tarots | 

cards the pages of a hieroglyphic book, contain- 1 
ing the principles of the mystic philosophy of the I 
Egyptians in a series of symbols and emblematic I 
figures. But modern criticism has shown that | 
this theory, however ingenious, is of too recondite \ 
and shadowy a character to admit of satisfactory | 
argument. | 

4. That cards were invented by the Chinese. | 
The principal evidence in favor of this doctrine 'j 
is contained in the Chinese dictionary Ching-tsze^ \ 
Hing, compiled by Eul-koung, and first published j 
A.D. 1678. It is there stated that the cards now ' 
known in China as Teen-tsze-pae, or dotted cards, 
were invented in the reign of Seun-ho, 11 20. 
According to tradition they were devised for the ! 
amusement of Seun-ho's numerous concubines. 

Even granting that cards had an early and 
separate birth in the Celestial Empire, Europe no i 
more derived her cards from China, than she did \ 



CARD ESSAYS, 



49 



her gunpowder, printing, and engraving, all of 
which are considered by some to have been 
originally Chinese inventions. 

5. That cards bear an analogy and relation to 
Chess, which is of Eastern, probably Hindustani, 
origin. 

These analogies, when examined, are insufificient 
to establish a common origin. The game of 
Tchaturanga (the four migas or members of an 
army), or Tchatiiraji (the four Rajahs or Kings), 
which is a kind of Chess, was played by four per- 
sons, with four suits of sets of men. The moves 
were determined by means of dice, thus making 
the game, as at most card-games, a compound 
one of chance, and skill. But here the analogy 
ends ; and the connection, if any, is rather with 
Backgammon than with cards. 

6. Lastily, that certain Indian cards, and the 
games played with them, present analogies with 
European cards and card-games. This is particu- 
larly the CgLse with the game of cards known as 
Gheiidifeh, The marks of the suits in the cards 
used, and also the rules of the game, have incon- 
testable relations with those of the Minchiate of 
Florence, and Ombre of Spain. Ghendifeh is 
played with a pack of ninety-six cards, of eight 
suits, containing twelve pieces each. Some of 
the suits, viz. : those of money and swords, 
resemble the suits of European cards. In the 



so 



CARD ESSAYS, 



division of the Hindustani suits into red and 
white, we have an analogy with the European red 
and black. In the Hindustani game there are 
eight suits and six or three players ; in the Eu- 
ropean game of Ombre four suits and three 
players. There are also said to be other points 
of similarity between Minchiate, Ombre, and Ghefi- 
difeh. 

But, admitting so great a similarity that one 
game may fairly be assumed to have been derived 
from the other, the inference might be that the 
Mohammedans of India imitated, in their game, 
the game of Europe. For, the peculiarities which 
link the European to the Indian game existed in 
the former in the year 1488, when cards had been 
known in Europe for at least a century ; and 
Europe had but Httle communication with India 
until about 1494. It must be admitted that this 
argument is not conclusive, as occasional inter- 
course would be sufficient to introduce cards. 

M. Merlin, the juror who prepared the report 
on the playing-cards sent to the Paris Exhibition 
of 1855, says that not any historic document, 
monument, nor quotation from Eastern writers, 
can be adduced in support of the theory that cards 
had either an Arabian or Indian origin,*' and that 
" an attentive study of the various theories of the 
Oriental origin of cards will show they have all 
been the results of imagination, and that the con- 



CARD ESSAYS, 



51 



jectures on which they have been based will not 
bear serious examination." 

It is not necessary here to endorse in its entirety 
such a sweeping conclusion. The arguments pro 
and con may be found by those interested in the 
subject in the books specified at the end of this 
Essay. Enough has been said to justify us in as- 
suming the great probabiHty of the European 
origin of cards, and consequently of the games 
played with them. 

Starting then in Europe, the question has to be 
answered, How, when, and where, in Europe did 
cards and the games played with them originate ? 
This question has exercised many learned men, 
and it has never been satisfactorily answered. 

The evidence as to the non-existence of playing- 
cards prior to the middle of the fourteenth cen- 
tury, is of course negative. No allusion to cards 
is to be found in the M.S. of Hugo von Trym- 
berg (second half of thirteenth and beginning of 
fourteenth centuries), nor in that of Petrarch 
(first half of fourteenth century), nor in Chaucer 
(second half of fourteenth century), though in all 
these writings gambling games and implements 
are mentioned. 

In the Escurial library there is a manuscript 
composed by the order of Don Alphonso the Wise, 
dated 1321, on the rules of chess and dice. It 
does not contain a word about cards. 



CARD ESSAYS. 



To come to positive evidence. The earliest 
date to which it has been proposed to assign the 
mention of cards is 1278; but this and all others 
up to 1375, have been shown by the fierce light of 
modern criticism either not to refer to cards, or 
to be interpolations. The earliest direct mention 
of cards that may be accepted without much de- 
mur is that in the Chronicle of Covelluzzo already 
referred to. The pflicht-bicch of Nurnberg (1380- 
84) is stated by some authorities to contain refer- 
ences to cards. But the earliest date, which has 
never been disputed, and from which the positive 
history of playing-cards begins is the one discov- 
ered by Pfere Menestrier in the registers of the 
Chambres des Comptes of Charles VI. of France, 
the account being that of Charles Poupart, the 
royal Treasurer. In the account commencing ist 
February, 1392, is the following entry: — "Donn^ 
a Jacquemin Gringonneur^ peintre^ pour trots jeux 
de cartes it or, et a diverses couleurs, ornds de 
plusieurs devises, pour porter devers le Seigneur Roi, 
pour so7t ^batejnent L VI sols Parisis!' That is, 
" Given to Jacquemin Gringonneur, painter, for 
three packs of cards in gold and various colours, 
and ornamented with several devices, to carry be- 
fore the Lord our King for his amusement, fifty- 
six sols of Paris." 

The conclusion drawn from this passage, that 
cards were invented for the use of Charles VI., is 



CARD ESSA YS. 



S3 



unwarrantable ; and so the sneer of Malkin, that 
it is no very favorable specimen of our wisdom 
to have universally adopted an amusement in- 
vented for a fool, is bereft of its sting. A careful 
examination of the wording shows that the pay- 
ment was for painting not for inventing cards. The 
general tenor of the entry, the simplicity with 
which it is made, the absence of any allusion to 
novelty in the conception, all point to the conclu- 
sion that playing-cards were already known ; and 
that these cards were executed to special order, 
with more elaborate gilding and coloring than 
usual, as would probably be the case with cards 
intended for the personal use of royalty. 

There are seventeen pieces in the National 
Library, Paris, which are erroneously called the 
Gringonneur or Charles VI. cards of 1392. They 
are in reality fine Venetian tarots of the fifteenth 
century, in the opinion of some judges not earlier 
than 1425. 

After 1392, many and certain references to 
playing-cards are to be met with. The general 
conclusion arrived at, subject to modification with 
the extension of our present knowledge, is, there- 
fore, that playing-cards were known about the 
middle of the fourteenth century, and that they 
originated in Europe. 

In the opinion of the latest authorities on the 
subject, there existed, for a considerable period 



54 



CARD ESSAYS, 



before the invention of playing-cards, a series of 
emblematic pictures called naibis^ the raison d'etre 
of which is not known with any certainty, but 
which are supposed to have been used either for 
simple amusement and instruction or for the pur- 
poses of divination and sortilege. And, it is fur- 
ther supposed, that about the end of the fourteenth 
century some inventive genius, probably Vene- 
tian, selected a certain number of these emblematic 
naibis^ and, by adding to them a series of numeral 
cards converted them into implements by which 
the excitement of chance and the interest of gain 
might be added to or might supersede the amuse- 
ment afforded by the original itaibis. 

There is much conjecture in this theory, — but 
as it is the latest, and is supported by good au- 
thority, it may pass muster until some better ex- 
planation is offered. 

Towards the end of the fourteenth century it is 
said that these mixed naibis and numerals (called 
tarots) were produced in Italy, Venice (or possibly 
Florence) being assumed as the city of their first 
appearance. The pack consisted of seventy-eight 
cards. Twenty-two were emblematic pieces, some 
of the original naibis being retained, and others of 
a moral character (bearing directly on the dangers 
and consequences of gambling) being introduced. 
Fifty-six were numeral pieces, divided into four 
suits of fourteen cards each, each suit consisting 



CARD ESSAYS. 



55 



of ten pip cards, numbered from one to ten, and 
of four picture or coat cards (afterwards corrupted 
into court cards), viz.: — King, queen, cavalier, and 
man-servant. From Italy playing-cards spread 
rapidly through Europe, but with various modifi- 
cations. 

The number of cards in the pack was frequently 
altered, and ere long the emblematic series was 
withdrawn altogether, except where it was re- 
quired for the old Tarots game, which still lingers, 
in some parts of Europe. 

The marks of the suits have been the subject of 
much curious speculation. The received notion 
about them is that they were originally emblem- 
atic, and that- they represented symbolically two 
theologic and two cardinal virtues. The earliest 
marks were cups, representing Faith ; money for 
Charity; swords for Justice ; and clubs for Forti- 
tude. 

There are other theories respecting the meaning 
of the marks of the suits ; but it seems not im- 
probable that they meant nothing at all, and were 
simply chosen from a variety of common objects, 
as being distinct, well known, and intelligible to 
all. But whether emblematic or not they were 
very soon changed when cards passed the Italian 
border. Each nation, except the Spaniards who 
retained the old sign, seemed to have its own idea 
as to the marks it preferred for its cards. The 



56 



CARD ESSAYS, 



Germans at a very early period employed hearts, 
bells, leaves and acorns. About the second quar- 
ter of the fifteenth century the French introduced 
what we choose to call spades, hearts, clubs and 
diamonds, and these marks were adopted in Eng- 
land. 

The meaning of the words spades and clubs, 
and their appHcation to the symbols to which they 
correspond, have exercised the ingenuity of many 
writers ; the following explanation seems to be 
the most probable. The spade symbol is the 
griin or leaf of the German marks, the leaf of the 
wild plum. In adopting it, the French called it 
pique^ as is believed from a fancied resemblance 
to the head of a pike. When we took it from 
the French, we renamed it spade, borrowing the 
French symbol and the Italian name for the suit 
of swords {spade). The English club is remark- 
ably like the German acorn, as any one may see 
who will compare the acorn on the old German 
cards with the trefle of old French ones. As 
drawn on modern cards, the symbol has the shape 
of a trefoil leaf, and hence the French name. 
Here again the English copied the French sym- 
bol, and gave it an Italian name, only Anglicizing 
it. The name of the Italian suit is bastoni (batons 
or clubs). The Italian symbol is precisely the 
same in appearance as the club with which Jack 
the Giant-Killer is armed in children's story books. 



^ARD ESSAYS, 



57 



The names of the suits in early cards may thus be 
arranged with regard to their countries : — 

Italian . . Coppe. Spade. Bastoni. Danari. 

Cups. Swords. Batons. Money. 

Spanish . . Copas. Espadas. Bastos. Oros or Dineros. 

German . . Herzen. Griin. Eicheln. Schellen. 

Hearts. Leaves. Acorns. Bells. 

French . . Coeurs. Piques. Trefles. Carreaux. 

English . . Hearts. Spades. Clubs. Diamonds. 

The precise nature of the earliest games played 
is not known with any certainty. In the game of 
Tarocchi, according to the oldest accounts, three 
principal elements may be perceived, i. The su- 
periority of the emblematic cards to those of 
other suits. This would naturally suggest itself 
in consequence of their being picture cards, and 
therefore more striking to the eye than numerals. 
They soon acquired a distinctive name, i trionfi 
(cards of triumph, or trumps), or atutti (above all, 
afterwards in French, atouts). 2. The winning of 
one card by another of superior numerical value, 
or trick-making. 3. Obligation to follow suit and 
to win the cards previously played, i,e,^ to take 
the trick, if able. 

In other Tarots games such as Minchiate, se- 
quences become a scoring element, the score 
is affected by certain combinations of cards held 
in hand, irrespective of play. This feature, varied 
indefinitely, afterwards appears in many games of 



58 



CARD ESSA VS. 



skill, as in scores for point, quatorze, and special 
rewards for certain privileged cards. 

When the tarots or emblematic cards were re- 
jected, trumps were determined by making one 
suit superior to the others. As the cards varied 
so did the games. In games of pure chance, such 
as Lansquenet, the results depend simply on the 
order in which the cards are dealt ; and this prin- 
ciple lies at the root of all card-games of chance 
to the present day. 

Later card-games of skill are all based on omis- 
sion or variation of some of the features already 
pointed out, with the addition of other insignifi- 
cant subsidiary ones too numerous to specify. 
The mode of producing excitement was constantly 
varied by the introduction of different methods of 
staking. At first the mode was to make a pool 
by subscription among the players. Then betting 
was added, in the form of vying on or backing 
the hands ; and a necessary accompaniment of 
this was to permit discarding, or changing worth- 
less cards in hand for undealt cards, in hope of 
increasing the value of the hand betted upon, and 
also to allow the players to play or pass as they 
pleased, generally on pain, if they passed, of for- 
feiting the sum already staked. Then, as a varia- 
tion, the amount to be won or lost was made in- 
definite, as at games where points are played for. 
In short, the greatest ingenuity has been exercised 



CARD ESSAYS, 



59 



in order to add to the excitement of play by in- 
troducing variety, and sometimes senseless variety. 
A curious instance of this, with regard to trick- 
making games, was first pointed out by Dr. P^ole. 
When a new game was invented, the order of the 
cards seems to have been varied, with the remark- 
able consequence that in no game where trick- 
making is a feature does the natural order of the 
cards prevail. To quote Dr. Pole " On the Philo- 
sophy of Games at Cards" {The Fields Dec. 20, 
1873): — "The natural order of the cards is the 
king, highest, then the queen, knave, ten, nine, 
and so on down to the ace, which is naturally the 
lowest of all ; but oddly enough, there is not, so \ 
far as we recollect, a single game where cards \ 
compete with each other in trick-making, in which i 
this natural order is preserved. In whist, as we 
know, the lowest card for playing is put in the 
highest position, while for cutting it remains the ^ 
lowest. In piquet it is highest both for cutting 
and playing. In ^cart6 the ace is put between 
the knave and the ten. In bezique and sixty-six 
the ten ranks between the ace and the king. In 
put and calabrasella the three is the best card ; in 
euchre the knave is best in trumps, the ace in 
other suits ; while in spoil-five the rank and order 
of the different cards in black and red suits, and 
in trump and plain suits, is absurdly complex, the 
five being the best trump, then the ace of hearts 



6o 



CARD ESSAYS. 



whatever suit is trumps, and so on. Now the 
philosophy of this feature is well worth study. 
Every reflecting person must be aware that all 
these distinctions are mere shams ; the playing of 
the games would be precisely the same without 
the changes in the rank of the cards ; but these 
changes are so firmly rooted in the constitution 
of the several games, that it would be impossible 
to eradicate them. Suppose, for example, that 
Mr. Clay, when writing his work on whist, had 
begun by saying that it was a puerile absurdity 
to make the lowest card capture the highest, and 
had proposed to revert to the natural rank of the 
cards, basing all his directions and illustrations on 
that plan. He would have had reason on his 
side ; but he would simply have been treated by 
the whist world as a madman, and his book would 
have shared the fate of De La Rue's memorable 
attempt to make the kings, queens, and knaves 
look like reasonable figures — it would have been 
ignominiously banished from all decent whist so- 
ciety. What is the explanation of this 

Assuming that the original game of all was the 
Tarocchi of Venice, played with seventy-eight 
cards (fifty-six numerals and twenty-two tarots), 
the first alteration was probably made by the 
Florentines, who increased the emblematic pieces 
to forty-one, and invented the game of Minchiate 
with ninety-seven cards. After this all the changes 



CARD ESSA YS, 



6i 



in the pack were in the direction of reduction, it 
being probably found that packs consisting of so 
many cards were awkward to handle. Accord- 
ingly, a little later, the Bolognese diminished the 
pack to sixty-two (twenty-two tarots aud forty 
numerals), the two, three, four and five of each 
suit being rejected. The game played with these 
cards was called Tarocchino. And the Venetians 
them.selves, at a very early period, abolished all 
the true tarots and suppressed the three, four, 
five and six of each suit (the pack now consisting 
of forty cards), and termed the game played with 
these packs Trappola. 

When cards travelled through Europe, the tar- 
ots cards found comparatively but little favor, 
though to this day tarots cards may be procured 
in Italy and in the south of France. Trappola 
cards {Drapulir Karten) are also still published at 
Vienna. But the vast majority of packs soon 
caijie to consist of fifty-two numeral cards, one of 
the four coat cards being removed from each suit. 
It seems not unlikely that on the loss of one of 
the pictures the ace was raised to its present rank, 
instead of the ten, in order to preserve the origi- 
nal number of cards of superior dignity. If so, 
this accounts for the lowest card ranking as the 
highest in so many games. At all events, this 
suggestion is thrown out as a possible answer to 
Dr. Pole's question. 



62 



CARD ESSAYS. 



With these fifty-two cards, some being occa- 
sionally suppressed, various countries invented, in 
the sense explained in the quotation from Paul 
Boiteau which heads this essay, and established 
their several games. No nations seemed content 
to adopt en bloc any game as it travelled to them, 
Though the varieties introduced were marvellous- 
ly ingenious and numerous, the old fundamental 
elements were maintained, in most instances so 
closely that there is no great difficulty in tracing 
the pedigrees of the principal modern games, 
owing to their easily recognized family likenesses 
to older ones. 

In order to do this it will be desirable to start 
with the early games, and to trace their successive 
developments until the games now in vogue are 
reached. 

In a Canzone of Lorenzo de Medici, Flush {il 
Frusso) and Bassett are referred to. The date of 
the Canti CarnascialescJiV in which the Canzone 
appears is doubtful ; but it is among the writer*s 
early compositions. He died in 1492. 

It may be assumed from the name il Frusso, 
that a flush (cards of the same suit) was one of the 
objects, or the principal object striven after by the 
players. No doubt this gam.e was an early edi- 
tion of Primero. Baretti's Italian Dictionary 
(Florence, 1832), under Frusso says, What we 
now call Primiera and the English Primero/' It 



CARD ESSAYS, 



63 



should rather be the Spaniards, for Primero is only 
the Spanish form of the Italian Primiera. At 
Primiera a flush is the most important hand. 
Primero is undoubtedly a very old game, of either 
Italian or Spanish origin. It is mentioned by 
Berni {Capitolo del Gioco della Primiera^ 1526) with 
Bassetta, il Fr.usso^ Tarocchi, Smmchiate, and other 
games. Seymour (Compleat Gamester, 1734) says 
Ombre is an improvement of Primero formerly 
in great Vogue among the Spaniards.'' But Pri- 
mero has no relation to Ombre, and it seems more 
likely that the Spaniards derived Primero from 
the Italian Frusso or Primiera, than the reverse. 
Primero is supposed by some to have been the 
oldest game played with numeral cards ; but it is 
now pretty well ascertained that Trappola was 
earHer, and so also probably were Flush and Bas- 
sett, as the simpler games would naturally precede 
the more complex ones. 

Primero was played in various ways and with 
packs of different degrees of completeness. Thus 
in Florence the sevens, eights, and nines were re- 
moved from the pack ; in Rome they were kept. 

The principal features of the game (as nearly as 
can be made out from old descriptions which are 
very obscure) were as follows : — Four cards were 
dealt to each player, and the rest was made or set 
at the second card. This probably means that, 
when two cards had been dealt, a pool was formed, 



CARD ESSAYS. 



and then the other two cards were dealt. The 
first player might either stand or pass. If he 
passed he was at liberty to discard one or two of 
his cards, and so on with the others. 

Any player having a good hand vyed on it, i,e.^ 
raised the stakes, and finally the hands were 
shown. The principal hands were i fl,ush, 2 prime, 
3 point. The highest flush was the best, then the 
highest prime (all four cards held being of differ- 
ent suits) ; and if there was no flush or prime, the 
highest point won. The point was thus reckoned ; 
seven (best card) counted for 21 ; six for 18 ; five 
for 15 ; four for 14; three for 13; two for 12; ace 
for 16; coat cards, 10 each. Also, if agreed, 
quinola, knave of hearts, might be made any card 
or suit. Another variation, probably of later in- 
troduction, was that four cards of a sort, as four 
sevens, were superior to a flush. 

Primero was played also in France. It is in- 
cluded by Rabelais in the list of games that Gar- 
gantua played, under the name of la Prime, The 
celebrated history was finished about 1545 ; but a 
portion of it was published earlier. 

In France, the game of Prime, elaborated, ap- 
pears to have been played under the name oL 
VAmbigu ou le Mesle. La Maison des Jeux Aca- 
d^miques (Paris, 1665) says Le Mesl^ sappelle tant 
farce quil tient en effet quelqiie chose de tous les au 
treSy et ajuen le voyant jouer o?i ne satirait discerne 



CARD ESSAYS, 



65 



si cest prime ou autre semb ladled In later edi- 
tions of the Academy it is called VAmbigu or the 
Banquet (literally a banquet of meat and fruit 
both together — repas ou Von sert en meme temps la 
viande et le fruit), and is stated to be an assemblage 
of different sorts of games. It was played with 
forty cards, all the figured cards being thrown out. 
Two cards were dealt to each player. The players 
then stood or passed ; if the latter, they discarded 
one or both of their cards, and had others in 
exchange. The pool was next put down, and two 
more cards dealt to each player. Each then ex- 
amined his hand and either stood or passed. Any 
one that stood might say va or go, and increase 
his stake or go better. If no one else increased 
the stake to equal the amount already gone, the 
person who backed his hand took the pool. But 
if two or more players chose to make vade, each 
of them might discard again or not, and then each 
that stood might pass or make the renvi, that is 
go better again. If no one stood the renvi, the 
player making it won. If any stood it, they were 
at liberty to renvier once more ; and the stakes of 
those who stood the second renvinow being equal, 
the hands had to be shown. The winner took the 
pool, the vade and the renvis^ and in addition cer- 
tain payments from each of the other players, 
whether they stood the game or not. The 
fredon, four cards of the same denomination, was 



66 CARD ESSAYS, 

the best hand, next flush-sequence^ (four cards of j 
the same suit in sequence), next tricon (three cards % 
of the same denomination), combined with prime \ 
(four cards of different suits), then flush^ tricon, J 
sequence, prime, and lastly point. Point was two 'i 
or three cards of the same suit, the highest point ; 
being that which contained the most pips. \\ 

Primero was also played in England. Shake- | 
speare represents the King (Henry VIII., act V. 
SC. l) as playing Primero with the Duke of Suf- 
folk, and the game was fashionable in the time of 
EHzabeth. In J. Florio's Second Frutes (1591) the 
following description of Primero occurs: — '^S. — 
Goe to, let us play at Primero then. * A. — 
Let us agree of our Game. What shall we plaie 
for ? S. — One shilling stake and three rest. A. — 
Agreede, goe to, discarde. S. — I vye it ; will you 
hould it ? A. — Yea, sir, I hould it and revye it ; \ 
but dispatch. S. — Faire and softly, I praie you. ; 
'Tis a great matter. I cannot have a chiefe carde. \ 
A. — And I have none but coate cardes. S. — Will ; 
you put it to me? A. — You bid me to losse. i 
S. — Will you swigg? A. — 'Tis the least part of : 
my thought. S. — Let my rest goe then, if you i 
please. A. — I hould it. What is your rest? \ 
S. — Three crownes and one third, showe. What 
are you? A. — I am four and fiftie ; and you? 
S. — Oh ! filthie luck ; I have lost it one ace.'' I 

The word revye" here gives a clue to the ety- 



CARD ESSAYS, 



67 



mology of the word ^Wie.** Some modern dic- 
tionaries say it is of uncertain etymology^ and 
suggest the German wagen, to wager. Bailey 
gives *^Revy, renvier, F.'* Revye is evidently the 
French re7tvi used at the game of Ambigu. Why 
should not ^Wye" be the same word adapted to 
the English language, by omitting the duplicating 
syllable ? 

Later than the sixteenth century, a bastard 
kind of Primero, called Post and Pair, was much 
played in the West of England. A pack of fifty- 
two cards was used. When Cotton wrote {Coin- 
pleat Gamester^ 1674) he described the game as 
under : — This play depends much upon daring ; 
so that some may win very considerably, who have 
the boldness to adventure much upon the Vye, 
although their cards are very indifferent." 

^'You must first stake at Post, then at Pair; 
after this deal two cards apiece, then stake at the 
Seat, and then deal the third Card about. The 
eldest hand may pass and come in again if any of 
the Gamesters vye it." 

Post would appear to have been the point, the 
best cards being two tens and an ace, counting 
one-and-twenty. A pair royal (three of a kind) 
beat everything else, and wins all, both Post, 
Pair and Seat." What seat is. Cotton does not 
explain. It seems to have been a third stake 
won by the player who held the best card out of 



68 CARD ESSAYS. 

those last dealt, as was the case at the sister game 
of Brag. 

Vying continued until all your antagonists were 
daunted and brought to submission. But *^If all 
the Gamesters keep in till all have done, and by 
consent shew their Cards, the best Cards carry 
the game. Now according to agreement those 
that keep in till last may divide the stakes, or 
show the best Card for it." 

The more naodern game of Brag is evidently 
Post and Pair with variations. It was played at 
least as early as Hoyle's time, for Hoyle wrote 

A short Treatise of the Game of Brag" in 175 1. 
It was played with fifty-two cards. The players 
laid down three stakes apiece, one for the best 
whist card turned up in the deal (this is probably 
the "seat" of the older game); a second for the 
best brag hand (pair) ; and a third for obtaining 
thirty-one, or the number nearest to it (post). 
Three cards were dealt to each player, the last 
one all round being turned up, to decide the first 
stake. The next stake was won by the best brag 
hand, or by the boldest player in backing his 
hand. Two cards, viz., knave of clubs and nine 
of diamonds (according to Hoyle three braggers), 
were made favorite cards, and were entitled to 
rank as any card, like the quinola at Primero, na- 
tural pairs or natural pairs royal, however, taking 
precedence of artificial ones. Any player saying 



CARD ASSAYS. 



^' I brag/* and increasing his stake, won, if no one 
answered with a similar or larger deposit. If any 
one answered, the bragging continued as at Post 
and Pair, till one would brag no more or made 
the stakes equal and called a show. After Hoyle's 
date, flush-sequences, flushes, and sequences were 
added to the hands that might win in bragging. 

For the third stake the players could draw 
cards from the stock to increase the point ; but 
any one over-drawing lost his chance. 

It only remains to observe that the game of 
Poker, originally played in America with fifty- 
two cards, may be described as developed Brag. 
The stakes for highest card and point are omit- 
ted, and the whole game consists in bragging 
or "going better" on the hands dealt or taken 
after discarding. Each player has five cards, and 
some winning combinations of cards are adopted 
from Ambigu, Primero, or Brag. The winning 
hands are as follows in order: — straight flush (a 
flush combined with a sequence), fours (four 
cards of a kind with one outside card), fulls 
(three cards of one denomination and a pair), 
flush (five cards of the same suit not in se- 
quence), straight (a sequence not all of the same 
suit), triplets (three cards of the same denom- 
ination, the other two cards not being a pair), 
two pairs, one pair, and highest card. It has 
quite recently been the fashion to play with 



70 



CARD ESSAYS. 



a pack of thirty-two cards, the cards from the 
deuce to the six (both inclusive) being thrown 
out. 

It is curious that the game of Poker, by many 
considered a new game, should be traceable to a 
game at least four hundred years old. 

Thus, Flush becomes Primiera, Primero, or 
Prime. Prime is modified into Ambigu. The 
offshoots of the last are Post and Pair and Brag, 
And lastly, throwing back" more nearly in 
some respects to the parent games. Poker, now a 
national game in America, is invented. 

In Germany the game of Lansquenet, under the 
name of Lajidsknechtspiel^ played with fifty-two 
cards, was a favorite, and by some authorities is 
called the national German card-game. It is said 
by Bettinelli, in the notes to the second canto of 
the poem already quoted, to have been a kind of 
Bassett or Faro (both very ancient) under another 
name. All these are mere games of chance, with 
an advantage to the dealer or holder of the bank. 
Of games of chance Lansquenet is about the sim- 
plest, depending only on whether a card of one 
denomination is turned up before a card of an- 
other denomination. It is, in fact, hardly a game 
at all, but merely a complicated way of playing 
pitch-and-toss with cards instead of coins ; and 
this remark applies to every chance game from 
"Bassett to Rouge-et-noir, In Germany, Lansque- 



CARD ESSAYS. 



71 



net seems to have been the most usual pitch-and- 
toss card-game ; but to elevate it to the dignity 
of a national card-game, is to treat it with a re- 
spect it does not deserve. 

Spain is credited with the invention of several 
games. Her claim to the invention of Primero 
has already been noticed ; but preference has 
been given to the view that Primero is only 
the Spanish rendering of the Italian Primiera. 
La Gana pierde was an early and popular game, 
and is no doubt the same game as Coqiiimbert 
(evidently a corruption of qui gagne perd), men- 
tioned in the Gargantua list. In France a very 
similar, if not the same, game was called Reversis, 
just as there Primero, with a difference, was re- 
christened AmbigM, In the Academic des Jeux it is 
said that Reversis was originally Spanish, and that 
it was called Reversis because (in some respects) 
it was the reverse of all other games. If played 
in England it might have been under another 
name ; Cotgrave says that a card-game called 
Loosing-lodam (formerly played in England) was 
very similar to Reversis^ and Urquhart translates 
the Coquiinbert of Rabelais by losing load him," 
probably a misprint for Losing-lodam. Modern 
Hoyles (including additional games not written 
by Hoyle) contain Reversis ; but no one ever 
seems to play at it. 

Reversis was played with forty-eight cards, the 



72 



CARD ESSAYS, 



tens being thrown out from a complete pack. 
Many old Spanish packs contain no tens ; and 
comparing this fact with those previously stated, 
the conclusion seems irresistible that La Gana 
pierde^ alias Coquimbert, alias Reversis, was the 
game for which they were intended. 

The national game of Spain was and is Om- . 
bre. It is played by three persons with forty 
cards, the tens, nines, and eights being discarded. 
It is a very complicated game, and, on that ac- 
count alone, one would suppose it must have had 
a simpler predecessor. But none of the writers 
on the subject have discovered any similar earlier 
and less complex game. It introduces an entirely 
new feature, viz. : that of playing with a partner 
or ally, instead of, as in the older games, every 
man*s hand (in two senses) being against every 
one else's. 

Ombre is a game of great merit, and was much 
played at one time in France and England. Modi- 
fications of it also were invented, viz. : Ombre a 
deuXy Tredille, Quadrille (four players), Quintille^ 
(five players), Sextille (six players), and Mediateur 
or Pr^f&ence, which again has variations such as 
Solitaire and Piquemedrille. Tresillio and Rocam^ 
bor^ much played in Spanish South America, are 
simply Ombre except in the mode of marking. 

The invention of Piquet is generally attributed 
to France. It is called by Rabelais both le Piquet 



CARD ESSAYS, 



73 



and le Cent ; and the same game under the name 
of Cientos was known very early in Spain. 

There is yet another possible derivation of 
Piquet, viz., from a German source. Speaking of 
German cards, Merlin says, For figures we meet 
kings, superior and inferior valets. ^- The 
pip cards are ten, nine, eight, seven, six and two, 
a composition resembling our own Piquet, in which 
the ace has been displaced by the two. This 
structure is ^ that of the Saxon game 
Schwerter Karte — cartes a V^pee, What appears 
to confirm our conjecture as to the analogy of 
Piquet with this jeii a V^pee is the fact that in the 
modern cards, manufactured at Vienna, for play- 
ing the German game ^ ^ the six is sup- 
pressed as it is in the French piquet-cards since 
the end of the seventeenth century.*' 

It is possible, too, that this may furnish a clue 
to the etymology of Piquet, a point much dis- 
puted. The sword of the Italian and Spanish 
cards is equivalent to the pique or spade of the 
French cards. What more likely than that Piquet 
is the French name of the Schwerter or Sword- 
game ? It has often been suspected that Piquet 
is in some way connected with pique, but for what 
reason has never been clearly made out. Piquet, 
under the name of Sant, a corruption of Centy was 
played in England until nearly the middle of the 
seventeenth century, when the French name of 



74 



CARD ESSAYS, 



Piquet was adopted, contemporaneously with the 
marriage of Charles I. to a French Princess, 

It is, further, not unlikely that Piquet is a de- 
veloped form of Ronfay a game included in Berni's 
list. This is in all probability the same game as 
la Ronfle included in Rabelais' list. If these have 
no connection with Piquet, it is at least a remark- 
able coincidence that the point at Piquet (one of 
the most important features in the game) was 
anciently called roiiflc. 

Whether or not the French national game was 
a development of the German Sword-game, or of 
Ro7tfa and Cientos^ it certainly, under the name of 
Piquet, became identified with France. Prior to 
the end of the seventeenth century the game of 
Cientos^ Cent, Sant or Piquet was played with a 
pack of thirty-six cards, the twos, threes, fours 
and fives being left out ; the sixes were then also 
withdrawn, and only thirty-two cards used, as at 
present. 

Ecarte may also be regarded as a game especial- 
ly French. As now played it is of quite recent 
invention ; but its earher forms may be traced 
back to the time of Berni. He includes in his 
list TrionfijWhiQh maybe assumed to be the game 
called Trionfo in Spain (mentioned by Vives, a 
Spaniard, d. 1541, in his Dialogues'' under the 
name of Triumphus Hispanicus), There can be 



CARD ESSA VS. 



75 



little doubt but that these games are closely re- 
lated to la Trtomphe of Rabelais. 

Triomphe was played in several ways, either 
tete-a-tete, or with partners, or as a round game. 
A piquet-pack was used, the ace ranking between 
the knave and ten. Five cards were dealt to each 
player, by two and by three at a time, and the 
top card of the stock was turned up for trumps. 
The players were obliged to win the trick if able. 
The player or side that won three tricks marked 
one point ; the winners of the vole, two points. 
The game was usually five up. If one side or 
player was not satisfied they might offer the point 
to the adversary. If he refused he was bound to 
vin the vole or to have two- scored against him. 

The same game was played in England, and is 
fiescribed by Cotton under the name of French- 
Ruff. It appears from Cotton that the players 
might discard (though the passage is rather ob- 
scure), and offering the point is absent from his 
account of the game. 

The family likeness of Triomphe or French-Ruff 
to 6carte scarcely needs pointing out. The main 
difference is the addition of a score for the king 
at fecarte. 

The French settlers in America took Triomphe 
with them, and transformed it into Euchre, now a 
national game in the States. 

The game of 7>/(?;;///^^ or French-Ruff must not 



76 



CARD ESSAY'S. 



be confused with the English game of Trump or 
Ruff-and-Honors, the predecessor of our national 
game of Whist. Cotton clearly distinguishes be- 
tween the two, calling Triomphe, Fre7tck-Kuil (ruff 
and trump being synonymous), and Trump, £71^- 
&//-Ruff-and-Honors. 

Trump seems to have been entirely of English 
origin ; at least no mention of it occurs in conti- 
nental books on games, the nearest approach to 
it being /es Homieurs mentioned by Rabelais. 
Trump was played in England as early as the be- 
ginning of the sixteenth century. The game of 
Ruff -and- Honors, by some called Slam, was 
probably the same game, or, if not, a similar 
game with the addition of a score for honors. 
It was played by four persons, with fifty-two 
cards, twelve cards being dealt to each and four 
left in the stock, the top card of which was turned 
up for trumps. The holder of the ace of trumps 
ruffed,, i.e,, he put out four cards and took in 
the stock. The game was nine up, and, at the 
point of eight, honors could be called as at long 
Whist. 

The game, with a slight modification, was after- 
wards called Whisk or Whist. In Taylor's Mot- 
to'' (162 1), Whist is one of the games enumerated. 
This is the earliest known mention of the game 
in print, and it is to be observed that it is spelt 
Whisk, not Whist. Cotton spells it both ways 



CARD ESSAYS. 



77 



(see p. 82). In the Compleat Gamester^ 1674, he 
says that " Whist is a game not much differing 
from this \i,e,, Ruff-and-Honors], only they put 
out the Deuces and take in no stock/* The trump 
was the bottom card, and the game was nine up. 
Whist, then, was originally played with forty- 
eight cards, and the odd-tricky that important 
feature in the modern game, was, of course, want- 
ing. 

Not long after this the game was made ten up. 
Cotton, ed. 1709, says the points were -^nine in 
all;** ed. 1721, ''ten in all;'* ed. 1725, nine in 
all;*' Seymour, ed. 1734, with which Cotton was 
incorporated, " ten in all ;'* and it may be assumed 
that, simultaneously with this change, the practice 
of playing with fifty-two cards obtained. While 
Whist was undergoing these changes, it was occa- 
sionally played with swabbers or swobbers, certain 
cards (not the honors) which entitled the holder 
to a stake independently of the general event of 
the game. 

After the szvabbers w^ere dropped, our national 
card-game having been known as Trump, Ruff- 
and-Honors, Slam, Whisk, and Whist-and-Swab- 
bers, finally became Whist. Whist it was when 
Edmond Hoyle wrote (A Short TREATISE 
On the Game of WHIST. By a Gentleman, 
1742), and Whist it has since remained. The only 
alterations that have been made are the reduction 



78 



CARD ESSA YS, 



of the game from ten up to five up, the introduc- 
tion of the treble game, and the aboHtion of call- 
ing honors. The Laws were also revised in 1864. 
And lastly, since about 1730, when a party of gen- 
tlemen used to frequent the Crown Coffee House, 
in Bedford Row (where they studied Whist, and 
laid down the following rules : Lead from the 
strong suit ; study your partner's hand ; and at- 
tend to the score''), the game has been greatly 
elaborated as regards scientific play. So far has 
this been carried that now, as Clay well remarks. 
Whist is a language, and every card played an 
intelligible sentence." 

Whist, a game (so far as is known) of purely . 
English invention, is now the King of Card- 
Games, and seems destined, for many a long year, 
to retain that distinction. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



Those marked * contain bibliographical lists. 



Bartsch, Adam. — Le Peintre-Graveur. Leipsic, 1803, 1821, 
1854, 8vo. Vol. vi., p. 55; vol. X., pp. 70-120; vol. xiii., pp. 
120-138. 

Singer, Samuel Weller. — Researches into the History of 
Playing-Cards; with Illustrations of the Origin of Printing and 
Engraving on Wood. London, 18 16. 4to. 

Peignot, Gabriel. — Recherches Historiques et Litteraires 
sur les Danses des Morts, et sur I'Origine des Cartes a Jouer. 
Dijon et Paris, 1826. 8vo. ^ 

CicoGNARA, Leopoldo. — Memorie spettanti alia Storia della 
Calografia. Prato, 1831. 8vo. 

* Bibliophiles FranqAis, Societe des. — Jeux de Cartes 
Tarots, et de Cartes Numerales, du quatorzieme au dix-huitieme 
Siecle. Paris, 1844. Folio. 

* Chatto, William Andrew. — Facts and Speculations on 
the Origin land History of Playing-Cards. London, 1848. 8vo. 

* BoiTEAu, Paul (d' Ambly). — Les Cartes a jouer et la 
Cartomancie. Paris, 1854, and London, 1859. 8vo. 

Passavant, J. D. — Le Peintre-Graveur. Leipsic, i860. 
8vo. Vol. i., pp. 6, 208, 213, 243; vol. ii., pp. 66, 70, 100, 176, 
205, 242, 246, 247; vol. v., pp. II, 119, 126, 129, 132, 134. 

Taylor, Rev. Ed. S. (B,A.), and others.— The History of 



So 



CARD ESS A F5. 



Playing-Cards, with Anecdotes of their Use in Conjuring, For- 
tune-Telling, and Card-Sharping. London, 1865. 8vo. 

(Translated from Paul Boiteau, with numerous additions and 
alterations). 

Merlin, R. — Origine des Cartes a jouer. Recherches Nou- 
velles sur les Naibis, les Tarots, et sur les autres Especes de 
Cartes. Paris, 1869. 4to. 

* WiLLSHiRE, William Hughes (M.D., Edin.) — A descrip- 
tive Catalogue of Playing and other Cards in the British 
Museum, accompanied by a concise general History of the 
Subject, and Remarks on Cards of Divination and of a politico- 
historical Character. London, 1876. Ryl. 8vo. 



ON THE 
ETYMOLOGY OF "WHIST," 
AND OF OTHER WORDS USED IN 
CONNEXION WITH IT. 



Etymology has been so unsuccessful in establishing clear 
and definite principles, or so unfortunate in their application, 
that many persons regard it as bearing the same relation to 
grammar as astrology does to astronomy, alchemy to chemistry, 
or perpetual motion to mechanics." — Welsford. 



The word Whist/' or more properly Whisk/* 
is of modern coinage. It does not occur in 
Shakespeare, nor, so far as is known, in any books 
until late in the first quarter of the seventeenth 
century. This statement has frequently been 
printed, and as it has never been controverted, 
its correctness may be assumed. 

The original form of the word in print was 
Whisk. It occurs, thus spelt, in Taylor s Motto," 
by Taylor, the Water-Poet, published in 162 1, and 
this is believed to be its first appearance in print. 
Speaking of the prodigal, Taylor says :— 



82 



CARD ESSA YS. 



He flings his money free with carelessnesse. 

At novum, mumchance, mischance (chuse ye which), 

At one and thirty, or at poore and rich, 

Ruffe, slam, trump, nody, whisk, hole, sant, new cut." 

According to The Quarterly Review^ January, 
1871, Whisk continued to be spelt with a for 
about forty years after Taylor's mention of it. 
The writer in The Quarterly says that the earliest 
known use of the word whist, spelt with a /, is in 
the second part of Hudibras (spurious), published 
in 1663, and quoted by Johnson : — 

** But what was this ? A game at Whist 
Unto our Plowden-Canonist." 

And here, it will be observed, the rhyme requires 
the alteration. 

Later the word was spelt indifferently whisk 
or whist for many years. Cotton (1674) in his 
description of the game always spells it whist, 
but in his account of Picket" he says the players 
follow in suit as at Whisk Farquhar Beaux's 
Stratagem," 1707) spells it whisk ; Pope (" Epistle 
to Mrs. Theresa Blount," 1715) spells it whisk ; 
Swift Essay on the Fates of Clergymen," 1728) 
spells it whist ; Thomson Autumn," 1730) spells 
it whist; Fielding ('^History of Jonathan Wild 
the Great," 1754) spells it whisk; Grose (''Dic- 
tionary of the Vulgar Tongue," 1785) spells it 
whist; the Hon. Daines Barrington ("Archaeo- 



CARD ESSAYS. 



33 



logia/' vol. viii., 1787) spells it whisk and whist. 
After this, so far as is known, it is always spelt 
whist. 

Charles Cotton describes Whist in *^ The Com- 
pleat Gamester : or Instructions how to play at 
Billiards, Trucks, Bowls, and Chess. Together 
with all manner of usual and most Gentile Games 
either on Cards or Dice. London, 1674." Al- 
though he was acquainted with the form Whisk, 
as already stated, he ignores that in his derivation, 
saying that the game " is called Whist from the 
silence that is to be observed in the play.*' 

In 1719, Richard Seymour produced *'The 
Court Gamester : or full and easy Instructions for 
playing the Games now in Vogue, after the best 
method ; as they are Play'd at Court, and in the 
Assemblies, viz. : Ombre, Picquet, and the Royal 
Game of Chess. Written for the Use of the 
Young Princesses. London." This contains no 
whist. But about 1734, Cotton's and Seymour's 
books were incorporated, with the following title : — 

Th€ Compleat Gamester : in three Parts, viz. I. 
Full and easy Instructions for playing the Games 
chiefly used at Court and in the Assemblees, viz., 
Ombre, Quadrille, Quintille, Picquet, Basset, Faro, 
and the Royal Game of Chess. II. The true 
Manner of playing the most usual Games at 
Cards, viz., Whist, All-Fours, Cribbidge, Put, Lue, 
Brag, &c., with several diverting Tricks upon the 



84 



CARD ESSA F5. 



Cards. III. Rules for playing at all the Games 
both within and without the Tables ; likewise at 
English and French Billiards. Also the Laws of 
each Game annexed to prevent Disputes. Lon- 
don." 

Under Whist we find, " Whist, vulgarly called 
Whisk. The Original Denomination of this game 
is Whist : Or, The Silent Game at Cards.'* And 
again, Talking is not allowed at Whist ; the very 
Word implies. Hold your Tongue^ 

Seymour seems to be strangely wrong in this 
statement, which he no doubt amplified from 
Cotton. The original denomination,*' so far as 
is known, was Whisk ; and if this is admitted all 
derivations from the interjection commanding 
silence require reconsideration. 

Nevertheless, the Whist-silence derivation was 
supported by Johnson and Nares. It is true that 
Dr. Johnson cautiously avoided saying that Whist 
means silence. He defined Whist as a game at 
cards, requiring close attention and silence,** and 
from this it may be inferred that he had in his 
mind the accepted etymology, but that he doubted 
its accuracy. Nares, however, in his Glossary,'* 
rushed in where Johnson feared to tread. He 
well remarks in his preface that he knows the 
extreme fallaciousness of the science of etymology 
when based on mere similarity of sound.** But 
under Whist*' he forgets his own canon, for he 



CARD ESSAYS. 



8S 



says, " That the name of the game of Whist is 
derived from this, is known, I presume, to all who 
play or do not play.'* 

Other authorities reject the derivation of Whist 
from silence. Dr. E. Cobham Brewer justly 
writes : — 

It is hardly necessary to state that the vulgar 
etymology of ' whist,' from the interjection mean- 
ing silence^ is wholly worthless, because the word 
is obviously a corruption of the older form 

* whisk.' The French ^ Dictionnaire Universel 
des Sciences, des Lettres, et des Artes ' says : — 

* Whist de I'Anglais whist ! (silence!), parce qu'il 
est defendu de parler a ce jeu, et de faire con- 
naitre meme a son partner le jeu qu'on a dans la 
main.' This is not special to the game of whist, 
but applies with equal force to a score of other 
games, and even if special cannot be admitted, as 
the word whist is only a corruption of a more 
ancient name. We will next clear the ground of 
all those languages which cannot have supplied 
the word, and thus reduce the area of research to 
the smallest possible compass. As there is no %v 
in Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, &c., we 
must not look for the word in those languages, 
at any rate either in the form of whist or whisk ; 
and, as there is no wh in German, we must not 
look for it in German. Similarly the Scandinavian 
family of languages is excluded^ unless, indeed, it 



h6 



CARD ESSAYS. 



is some corruption. Now it cannot be a corrup- 
tion of any Romance, German or Scandinavian 
word, inasmuch as the word itself exists in several 
of the European languages, even although they 
do not possess a zv or ivJi, Thus in French we 
have whist J although zv is not a French letter. In 
German we have whist, although wh is not a Ger- 
man combination. The same may be said of 
other nations, and we cannot withhold the obvious 
conclusion that the Avord has been borrowed by 
them from the English and naturalised ; or, in 
other words, that the game is a British game, and 
the word must be looked for within the British 
dominions.*' 

The Doctor proposes a Welsh source, givis, 
tantamount to the French invite, lead. Though 
ingenious, this derivation is said to be philologi- 
cally untenable, because gw" in Welsh is repre- 
sented by w" in English, and not by wh.'* 

Chatto, a very careful wTiter, suggests in his 
Facts and Speculations'' that whisk is derived 
by substitution from the word ruff. Ruffs and 
whisks as articles of dress w^ere practically syno- 
nymous. The game already had several aliases, 
viz. : triumph, trump, slam, ruff, and rufT-and-hon- 
ors. At this time (middle of the seventeenth 
century) the game was in a transition state, and 
it seems not unlikely that on another alias being 
addedy a word almost synonymous with ruff 



CARD ESSAYS. 



87 



should be chosen. At all events this derivation 
seems less improbable than any other that has 
been offered. Ruff, as the name of a game, has 
been supposed to have referenee to the ruff worn 
by the figures on the coate cards. But this deri- 
vation is open to argument. 

The following considerations as to the deriva- 
tion of ruff, are submitted, not dogmatically, but 
in hopes of contributing to the solution of a dis- 
puted and difficult question. 

Ruff appears at one time to have meant the 
point at piquet. In ''Le Royal Jev dv Piqvet plai- 
sant et recreatif^' Rouen, 1647, the point is called 
''ro7zfley The book was translated into English 
in 165 1, with the following title, The Royall and 
delightfuU Game of Picquet written in French 
und now rendered into English out of the last 
French Edition." In this work the word ronfle" 
is translated ''ruffe," Cotton, in the '' Compleat 
Gamester," also calls the point the ruff. After 
the discarding you must consider the Ruff, that 
is how much you can make of one suit." This, 
however, does not help us much. Even if ruff 
is derived from ronfle, how did a word, formerly 
used to signify the point at Piquet, come to desig- 
nate an English game ? 

At English -Ruff or Ruff- and- Honors, ruffing 
did not necessarily mean trumping, as it does at 
modern Whist. The term was employed in the 



88 



CARD ESSAYS. 



sense of discarding. Cotton Compleat Game- 
ster") says, At Ruff and Honors, by some called 
Slamm, you have in the Pack all the Deuces, 
and the reason is, because four playing having 
dealt twelve a piece, there are four left for the 
Stock, the uppermost whereof is turn'd up, and 
that is Trumps, he that hath the Ace of that 
Ruffs; that is, he takes in those four cards, and 
lays out four others in their lieu." 

The connection between discarding and so add- 
ing to the point or ronfle at Piquet (the great 
object with good players), and discarding at Ruff- 
and-Honors and so adding to the number of 
trumps in hand (trump and ruff being synony- 
mous as wuU presently appear), is not very remote. 
One link only is wanting. If it could but be 
shown that ronfler ever meant to discard, or rather 
to add to the ro7ifle or point by discarding and 
taking in, the chain would be complete. To as- 
sume some such meaning is not more violent than 
the assumption that whisk is derived by substitu- 
tion from ruff ; at all events, in the absence of a 
better theory, this may perhaps be allowed to pass 
muster. 

French-Ruff, or Triomphe (French) was a kind 
of Ecart6, at which discarding was an essential 
part of the game. Here again ruffing and dis- 
carding are brought face to face. The game is 
called French-Ruff in the Compleat Gamester," 



CARD ESSAYS. 



89 



Triomphe in the Acad^mie des JeuxT It must 
not be confounded with the English game of 
Trump, which, if not the same game as Ruff-and- 
Honors, was, Hke the latter, an imperfect form of 
Whist. 

The derivation of Trump, the game from which 
Ruff-and-Honors and Whist were derived, is com- 
paratively simple. 

Trump is a corruption of the word trhimph. It 
occurs both in its original and its corrupt form in 
Latimer's sermon On the Card," preached at St. 
Edmund's Church, Cambridge, the Sunday before 
Christmas, 1529: — 

" And whereas you are wont to celebrate Christ- 
mass in playing at Cards, I intend, by God's Grace, 
to deal unto you Christ's Cards, wherein you shall 
perceive Christ's Rule. The game that we play 
at shall be called the Triumph, which, if it be well 
played at, he that dealeth shall win ; the Players 
shall likewise win ; and the standers and lookers 
upon shall do the same ; insomuch that there is no 
Man willing to play at this Triumph with these 
Cards, but they shall be all winners and no losers 
^ ^ ^ You must mark also, that the Triumph 
must apply to fetch home unto him all the 
other Cards, whatever suit they be of ^ ^ ^ 
Then further we must say to ourselves, What re- 
quireth Christ of a Christian Man? Now turn up 
your Trump, your Heart (Hearts is Trump, as I 



90 



CARD ESSA YS. 



said before), and cast your Trump, your Heart, 
on this Card.'* 

There is abundant evidence that trump and 
triumph are the same word. Shakespeare (An- 
tony and Cleopatra, Act IV., scene 12) intro- 
duces triumph in the double sense of a warlike 
triumph, and of a trump card. The passage, con- 
taining repeated punning allusions to card-play- 
ing, leaves no doubt as to the reference to cards 
in the word triumph. 

Again, Seymour, in the Court Gamester," 
1719, says: — ^'The Term Trump comes from a 
Corruption of the Word Triumph; for wherever 
they are, they are attended with Conquest.'' 

How ruff came to be synonymous with trump 
is uncertain. In Cotgrave's French and English 
Dictionary," 161 1, is found Triomphe, The Card 
Game called Ruffe or Trump," and many other 
authorities couple the two words in a similar way. 
Nares, in his Glossary," says : — ^' Ruff meant a 
trump card, charta dominatrix!' 

Another synonym for Ruff-and-Honors was 
Slam. This word is now only applied to the 
winning of every trick, and the usual derivation 
given is from lamen^ to smite. It must be ad- 
mitted, however, that this etymology requires 
further investigation. 

Soon after Ruff-and-Honors acquired the ap- 
pellation of Whisk, a term of very strange charac- 



CARD ESSA YS, 



91 



ter, viz., swabbers or swobbers became associated 
with it. Fielding, in his History of the Life of 
the late Mr. Jonathan Wild, the Great," records 
that when the ingenious Count La Ruse was 
domiciled with Mr. Geoffrey Snap, in 1682, or, in 
other words, was in a spunging-house, the Count 
beguiled the tedium of his in-door existence by 
playing at Whisk-and-Swabbers, the game then 
in the chief vogue." Swift also, in his Essay on 
the Fates of Clergymen" (1728), ridicules Arch- 
bishop Tenison for not understanding the mean- 
ing of swabbers. The story goes that a clergy- 
man was recommended to the Archbishop for 
preferment, when His Grace said, he had heard 
that the clergyman used to play at Whist and 
swobbers ; that as to playing now and then a 
sober game at Whist, it might be pardoned ; but 
he could not digest those wicked swobbers." 
Johnson defines swobbers as four privileged 
cards used incidentally in betting at Whist." In 
Captain Francis Grose's Classical Dictionary of 
the Vulgar Tongue" (1785), swabbers are stated 
to be The ace of hearts, knave of clubs, ace and 
duce of trumps at Whist." The Hon. Daines 
Barrington (writing in 1787) says, that at the 
beginning of the century. Whisk was played 
with what were called swabbers, which were pos- 
sibly so termed, because they who had certain 
cards in their hand were entitled to take up a 



92 



CARD ESSAYS, 



share of the stake, independent of the general 
event of the game/* 

No satisfactory etymology of the word swab- \ 
bers can be given. Chatto ('^ Facts and Specula- | 
tions") suggests that the fortunate, clearing the ; 
board of this extraordinary stake, might be com- I 
pared by seamen to the Swabbers (or cleaners of \ 
the deck)'' of a vessel. This must be regarded \ 
rather as a Speculation" than as a Fact.'' 

Swabbers, as an adjunct to the game of Whist, j 
eventually dropped away. But it seems possible ■ 
that they may still linger in local coteries. Mr. | 
R. B. Wormald, writing in Cassell's Popular j 
Recreator, " in April, 1873, says: — % 
Would the giants of the ' Portland ' or ' Ar- | 
lington ' [now The Turf Glub] be surprised to j 
hear that in this enlightened nineteenth century j 
the ^ swabber ' still holds its place in rural Whist, 
and that we ourselves have personally come across ! 
the anachronism ? The phenomenon occurred in | 
this wise : — Some few years ago, in the course of | 
a boating trip from Oxford to London, we were ^< 
driven by stress of weather to take shelter one j 
summer evening in a sequestered hostelry on the >■ 
Berkshire bank of the Thames, and on entering ' 
the parlor we were agreeably surprised to find j 
four local ' Cavendishes ' deeply immersed in the ; 
' game of silence,' to the accompaniment of long ' 
pipes. In the middle of the hand, one of the | 



CARD ESSAYS, 



93 



players, with a grin that almost amounted to a 
chuckle, and a vast display of moistened thumb, 
spread out upon the table the ace of trumps ; 
whereupon the other three deliberately laid down 
their hands, and forthwith severally handed over 
the sum of one penny to the fortunate holder of 
the card in question. On inquiry, we were in- 
formed that the process was technically known as 
a * swap ' (qy. ' swab ' or * swabber and was de 
rigueur in all properly constituted whist circles. 
Our efforts to elucidate the etymology of the 
term proved unavailing ; but this is scarcely sur- 
prising, seeing that the true etymology of 

* Whist * itself — though popularly associated with 

* silence * — is a very moot point, while the deriva- 
tion of the word ' ruff ' or ' to ruff ' is a mystery 
that, to the best of our knowledge, no lexico- 
grapher has ever succeeded in unravelling.'* 

The extreme obscurity which shrouds the ety- 
mology of these various technical terms connect- 
ed with Whist is not less remarkable than the 
changes of name undergone by the game itself. 
First in order comes Triumph or Trump, a game 
of purely EngHsh origin, and in no way connected 
with the French game of la Triomphe. Trump, 
; possibly with some additions or alterations, be- 
came converted into RufT-and-Honors, and Slam. 
Whisk followed, differing but little from these. 
Swobbers were afterwards joined on to Whisk, 



94 



CARD ESSAYS, 



but Whisk-and-Swobbers was abandoned, and 
our national card-game became simply Whist, 
under which name it seems likely to remain 
for an indefinite time the King of Card-Games. 



DUTIES ON PLAYING-CARDS. 



''It is quite right that there should be a heavy duty on 
Cards." — Southey. 



That Playing-Cards, being articles of luxury, 
are fit objects for the imposition of a duty, is a 
proposition which can hardly be denied. But 
what the amount of the duty should be is by no 
means clear. A high duty checks production, 
diminishes consumption, and leads to evasion. 
Experience renders it probable that the present 
duty of 3d. a pack is about as high a one as can 
be borne, without defeating its own object, as will 
appear from the following historical sketch. 

A tax was first levied on playing-cards in the 
reign of James I. (1615), In the ^^ Calendar of 
State Papers," Domestic Series, A.D. 1611-1618, 
is the following minute : — 161 5, July 20. West- 
minster. — (19). Letters Patent granting to Sir 
Richard Coningsby, for a rent of £200 per an- 
num, the imposition of 5s. per gross on playing- 
cards, and the office of Inspector of all playing- 
cards imported in recompense of ;^ 1,800 due 



96 



CARD ESSAYS, 



to him from the King, and of his patent for the 
sole export of Tin, granted by the late Queen/* 
Warrant for the above granted July 19. 

The proclamation of this patent is preserved in 
the library of the Society of Antiquaries ; and 
following the proclamation is The Copie of the 
Lord Treasourer s Letter,'* as under : — After my 
heartie commendations, whereby it hath pleased 
his Majestie to direct a Privy Seal to me, touch- 
ing the imposition of five shillings upon every 
grosse of Playing Cards that shall be Imported 
into this Kingdome or the Dominions thereof by 
vertue of his Majestie's Letters Patents granted 
to Sir Richard Coningsby knight under the 
Greate Scale of England. In regard whereof 
These are to wil and require you to take notice 
thereof and not to suffer any merchant to make 
any entry of Playing-Cards until the same impo- 
sitions be paid according to the said Letters pat- 
ents. Provided that the Patentees give caution 
for maintayning the Custome and Import accord- 
ing to a Medium thereof to be made as in such 
cases is used : And so having signified his Majes- 
tie's pleasure to you in that behalfe I bid you 
heartily farewell. 

" Your Louing Friend, 

**Tho: Suffolke. 

" From Northampton House the 
29th of October, 161 5.** 



CARD ESSA YS, 



97 



The date usually taken, probably on the author- 
ity of Singer, for the original taxing of cards is 
163 1. It may be that he confused between the 
imposition of the tax, and the protest against it 
made in the reign of Charles I. The duty on 
cards was one of the taxes then complained of by 
the Commons as arbitrary and illegal, and being 
levied without consent of Parliament/' 

In the reign of Queen Anne playing-cards were 
first subjected to a duty with the consent of Par- 
liament. In 1 710 an act was passed to obtain an 
annual sum of 186,670 as a fund or security for 
raising a sum of ;^2,6o2,20o, for carrying on the 
war, and for other her Majesty's Occasions.'' It 
was enacted that playing-cards should pay a duty 
of sixpence a pack for a term of thirty-two years, 
commencing June 11, 171 1. Under the act, all 
makers of cards or dice were required to send to 
the Commissioners of the Stamp Duties on Vel- 
lum, Parchment, and Paper, notice in writing con- 
taining the address of the house or place where 
cards or dice were manufactured. Makers omit- 
ting to send such notice, or manufacturing in 
houses not notified, became liable to a penalty of 
;^'50. Various other vexatious obHgations were 
imposed, as, for example, the makers had to per- 
mit the proper ofificers for the duties in question 
to enter their houses of business to " take an ac- 
count of the cards and dice there made," on pen- 



98 



CARD ESSAYS. 



alty of ;£'io for every refusal. The makers were 
not allowed to remove cards from the factory un- 
til the paper and thread enclosing every pack was 
sealed in such a manner as was satisfactory to 
the Commissioners of Duties, under pain of for- 
feiting the goods removed, and treble their value. 
In addition, the card and dice makers were re- 
quired to make entry, upon oath, once in every 
tv/enty-eight days of the number of cards and 
dice manufactured by them in the interim, and 
they had to clear within the ensuing fortnight the 
amount of duty then declared due. Neglect on 
these scores was visited by forfeiture of £20 for 
default in making entry, and double duty for non- 
payment of the tax within the specified time. 

The proposal to lay an impost on playing-cards 
encountered much opposition. Several petitions 
against the tax were presented to Parliament, by 
card-makers and importers of paper, which are 
suflSciently interesting to be quoted at some 
length : — 

Considerations in Relation to THE IMPOSI- 
TION ON CARDS, Humbly submitted to the 
Honourable HOUSE of COMMONS : — 

Nine parts in ten of the cards now made are 
sold from 6s. to 24s. per gross, and even these six 
shillings in cards by this Duty are subjected to 
pay £1 I2s. tax. 

This with humble submission will destroy Nine 



CARD ESSAYS. 



99 



Parts in Ten of this manufacture for those Cards 
which are now bought for 3^., can't then be af- 
forded under \od, or a shilling, for every hand 
through which they pass will add a gain in con- 
sideration of the Tax imposed and therefore the 
generality of the people will buy none at all. 

" If any of your Honours hope by this Tax to 
suppress expensive Card-playing, It is answered, 
That the Common sort who play for innocent di- 
version will by this tax be only hinder'd ; for those 
sharp gamesters who play for money but do not 
use the Twentieth part of the Cards sold, will 
not by this Tax be discouraged ; for those who 
play for many Pounds at a game will not be hin- 
dered by paying \2d, per pack: And the destruc- 
tion of this manufacture will be attended with 
these ill consequences : — 

^^First, Nothing (in comparison) will be (clear 
of all charges) raised by this duty imposed. 

Secondly, All that depend upon this manufac- 
ture will be rendered incapable to maintain their 
numerous families or pay their debts. 

Thirdly, The English paper manufacture 
(which is the middle of the Cards) will be extream- 
ly prejudiced. 

" Fourthly, The importation of the Genoa White 
Paper (with which the Cards are covered) will be 
very much diminished ; and in the consequence 
thereof, 



lOG 



CARD ESS A YS, 



Fifthly and lastly. Her Majesty will lose as 
much Paper duty as the clear Duty on the Cards 
to be sold will amount unto. 

"And if it be intended to charge the Stock in 
hand, then the present Possessors will be thereby 
obliged to pay a Duty for Ten times more Cards 
than ever they will sell. 

^\ Wherefore it is humbly hoped, That your Hoji- 
ours will not lay a Duty which ifs humbly conceived 
will brhig no profit to the QuEEN, but inevitably 
ruin many hundreds of her subjects!' 

The merchants importing Genoa paper and 
others followed suit in a similar strain: — 

The case of the Merchants Importing Genoa 
paper, the Stationers, Haberdashers of small 
ware, the English Paper-makers, and Card-makers. 

In relation to the Intended Duty on Cards, 
humbly submitted to the Honourable House of 
Commons.'' 

The preamble with slight alterations proceeds 
as in the previous petition down to the end of the 
first " ill consequence,'' and then the petition con- 
tinues as follows : — 

Secondly, The English Paper-Manufacture ex- 
tremly prejudiced, because by a modest compu- 
tation there are 150 Paper Mills in England and 
each of these one with another Annually make 
400 Rheams ; one-Fourth of which is now used in 
the ordinary cards, and none of these will (when 
this great Duty is imposed) be ever made. 



CARD ESSAYS. 



lOI 



^' Thirdly, Her Majesty's Customs arising from 
the Importation of Genoa Paper will be extreme- 
ly lessen'd : for it is reasonably supposed that 
there are 40,000 Rheams of Genoa paper annually 
used in this manufacture, which already pays Cus- 
tom \od, per Rheam, amounting to £\,666 13^., 
which by this intended duty will be quite lost, the 
said Genoa paper being of little use but in Card- 
making. 

'^Fourthly. Three parts in four of the Card- 
makers, and the many families which depend 
upon them, will by this intended Tax be inevita- 
bly ruin'd, for those Card-makers depend upon 
their credit and work 8 months in 12 for the Win- 
ter-Season, and during those 8 months scarce re- 
ceive enough to find their families with Bread, 
and therefore can never pay this great Duty, and 
consequently not follow their trade. 

Seeing by this intended Duty her Majesty's 
loss in her Customs, the loss of the merchants 
importing paper, of the Stationers who credit the 
Card-makers, of the Wholesale Haberdashers who 
sell the Cards, and of the Card-makers, will 
amount to five times more than this designed 
imposition can clear of all charges be suppos'd to 
raise; and five parts in six of the Card-makers 
and their numerous Dependents inevitably ruined. 

''It is therefore humbly hop'd this Honourable 
House will give relief in the Premisses/' 



I02 



CARD ESSAYS. 



The poor Card-makers and the Company of 
Card-makers also presented petitions against the 
tax, in language almost identical. The following 
is the petition known as that of the ''poor * card- 
makers : — 

'' Reasons Humbly offer d by the Card-makers 
against the Tax upon Playing-Cards. 

'' The Card-makers in and about the City of 
London are about One Hundred Master Work- 
men. For sometime past (Paper having been 
double the Price as formerly) the trade is much 
decayed. 

*' The most they sell their Cards for to the Re- 
tailers (one sort with another) is Three Half-pence 
the Pack, and their Profit not above one Half- 
penny. So that the Tax intended will be double 
the value of the Cards and six times their gain. 

'' The generality of these Card-makers are Poor 
men and out of the Small Gains above can hardly 
maintain their families : And therefore to impose 
a Tax to be immediately paid upon making by 
the Card-makers (whose Stocks and Abilities are 
so very mean, that they now make hard shift to 
forbear the Retailers the ordinary time of Credit) 
will be a direct way to Ruine these Poor Men. 

'' Besides there is at present a Stock of Cards 
in the retailers' hands sufificient for the consump- 
tion of Four or Five years ; and they will assured- 
ly sell all the old stock off before they take any at 



CARD ESSA YS. 



t03 



the New advanced rate : The consequence where- 
of will be : — 

First, That the Card-makers till that stock be 
sold off can make no new ones. 

" Secondly, That during that time their Families 
must needs starve. 

''Lastly, That until the card-makers can make 
new ones no money can arise by such Tax.'* 

Her Majesty's '^occasions," however, were such, 
that opposition was fruitless, and the Act became 
laAv. The duty was imposed on all cards " made 
fit for sale" during a certain term. In the follow- 
ing year it was found expedient, for the better 
securing the duties on playing-cards, and to pre- 
vent defrauding of the revenue, to amend this, and 
to enact that all stocks of cards which were fit for 
sale before the operation of the former act com- 
menced, and which remained unsold in the hands 
of any person trading in cards, should be brought 
to the Stamp-office to be marked. On the tra- 
ders making oath that the stocks so brought were 
actually made and finished before the I2th of 
June, 171 1, they were entitled on payment of one 
half-penny per pack to have them sealed or stamp- 
ed accordingly. All cards not brought to the 
Office before the ist of August, 1712, were to be 
deemed to be made fit for sale after June, 171 1, 
and to be charged with the full duty. And after 
July, 1 71 2, no playing-cards were to be exposed 



X04 



CARD ESSAYS, 



for sale of used in play in any public gaming- 
house unless marked in conformity with the pro- 
visions of the act, both on the wrapper and on the 
spotted or painted side (now called the fore-side), 
of one of the cards of each pack. 

By the same Act the regulations permitting the 
search entry of revenue officers to the houses of 
card-makers were extended to public gaming- 
houses ; and the notices required to be given by 
card-makers, and the clauses relating to the re- 
moval of unstamped cards, were amended and 
made more stringent. 

Offenders against these provisions were ren- 
dered liable to a penalty of for every pack 
of unstamped cards found in their possession. It 
was also made felony, punishable with death, to 
counterfeit or forge the seals, stamps, or marks 
which denoted the payment of the duties. About 
ninety-five years ago the punishment of death 
was actually inflicted on an unfortunate engraver 
named Harding, who engraved a duty ace of 
spades to the order of a card-maker. The card- 
maker escaped from the country, or he would, in 
all probability, have shared the engraver*s fate. 

Despite the precautions and penalties enumer- 
ated, frauds on the revenue continued. Indeed, 
every enactment relating to playing-cards is ac- 
companied by some reference to fraudulent prac- 
tices with regard to the duties under the former 



CARD ESSAYS. 



Act. It was now discovered that persons were 
in the habit, after cards had been used, of cutting 
out and tearing off the marks placed on the fore- 
side of playing-cards, for the purpose of affixing 
the same marks to fresh packs, and so of making 
one stamp serve over and over again. There was 
also a method contrived to render available for 
further use the seal and stamp upon the outside 
papers or wrappers. In order to check these pro- 
ceedings a clause was introduced into an Act 
passed in 6 Geo. I. (1719) for preventing frauds 
and abuses in the public revenues." A penalty 
of £10 was imposed on any person convicted of 
working up old stamps ; and, when it was sus- 
pected that cards were being made up for sale in 
any private place (that is in any place of which 
the Commissioners of Stamps had not the usual 
written notice), power was given to the revenue 
officers, on a warrant being granted, to break 
open the doors of the suspected places, and to 
enter, and seize all cards, dice, tools, and mate- 
rials with which they are made." 

Further, the term of thirty-two years over 
which the duty upon playing-cards was to remain 
in force was extended indefinitely. 

Matters remained in the state described until 
29 Geo. II. (1756), when an additional tax of six- 
pence a pack was imposed on playing-cards. As 
usual, the opportunity was taken to frame meas- 



io6 



CARD ESSA YS, 



ures in expectation of preventing the fraudulent 

evasions of the duty which still obtained. It 
transpired that great frauds were committed un- 
der pretence that cards were manufactured for 
Exportation, such cards being exempt from duty. 
It was therefore enacted that all playing-cards in- 
tended for exportation should be distinguished 
by a particular wrapper, and that one card in each 
export pack should be marked with a special 
stamp. Cards wrapped and stamped as for expor- 
tation were not to be used in Great Britain, under 
a penalty of £20. A £20 penalty was also at- 
tached to the selling and buying of any covers or 
labels that had been already used. 

It appeared also that the trick of selling slight- 
ly soiled playing-cards as "waste'* was largely 
practised, to the detriment of the revenue. The 
soiled cards consisted of those so damaged in 
making as to be rejected by the manufacturers. 
They were purchased for a few pence per pound, 
chiefly by Jew speculators, who sorted them and 
disposed of them at a cheap rate. In order to 
put a stop to this system, all persons disposing of 
cards "commonly called waste cards'* were re- 
quired before sale to " mark the back or plain 
side of every painted or picture card in such man 
ner as to render the same unfit to be used in 
play." 

In the reign of George III. no less than seven 



CARD ESSAYS. 



Acts of Parliament were passed relating to cards 
and dice. All this legislation tended to two ends, 
— to impose additional duties, and to circumvent 
the evaders of the tax. It was more than suspect- 
ed that the Inland Revenue officers were tam- 
pered with. A new plan was therefore resolved 
on. Hitherto the stamp had been impressed on the 
card made by the manufacturers, the card selected 
being generally, if not always, the ace of spades. 
But from and after the 5th July, 1765, makers of 
playing-cards were required to send to the Stamp 
Office the paper on which the ace of spades was 
to be impressed. The Commissioners of Stamps 
were to print the duty aces of spades themselves, 
and had a plate prepared for the purpose, with a 
device somewhat similar to that in use up to 1863, 
only less elaborate. The Commissioners had the 
power of altering the device at pleasure, in order 
to throw difficulties in the way of counterfeiting 
it. The card-makers were further required to 
send to the office the wrappers which they pro- 
posed to use for enclosing the cards. The wrap- 
pers were to have the maker's name printed on 
them, and were to be stamped with a sixpenny 
stamp. This stamp was not an additional duty. 
The duty still remained at one shilling : but the 
mode of imposition was varied, so that one half of 
the duty fell on the ace of spades, and the other 
half on the wrapper. At the same time, the penal- 



jl 
1 

! 

io8 CARD ESSAYS. I 

I 

ty for refusing to allow inspection of premises j 
where card-making was carried on was raised from | 
£20 to £S0' \ 

Eleven years later an additional duty of six- 
pence a pack was levied, making the total duty 
one shilling and sixpence. ] 

In the meantime the ingenious enemies of the | 
revenue had not been idle. The occupation of ' 
selling waste cards was gone ; but there was no | 
prohibition against selling second-hand cards. Ac- ^| 
cordingly, the card-maker's waste was still sorted | 
into packs, which were disposed of as second- 
hand cards, to the great injury of the revenue.'* \ 
A penalty of £^ a pack was therefore imposed on * 
any person selHng second-hand cards, unless the ] 
backs of the picture cards were so marked as to I 
render them unfit to be used in play. | 

In 1789, and again in 1801, the duty was further j 
increased by sixpenny steps, till it reached the I 
sum of half-a-crown a pack. The traffic in cards | 
not duly stamped was powerfully stimulated by j 
the high duty. Various evasive devices were in- \ 
vented, and more than one speculator amassed a ; 
large fortune by selling, under various pretences, i 
cards on which no duty had been paid. Under j 
the then arrangements, waste aces of spades could j 
not be procured to any great extent, for the dam- j 
aged aces were returned to the Stamp Office, and j 
allowed for in the card-makers' accounts. Packs, 



CARD ESSAYS. 



109 



therefore, were made up for sale with a blank 
card in place of the ace of spades. Cut-corner 
cards, as they were called, packs of cards of 
which one corner was cut off, and minus the ace 
of spades, were sold in immense quantities. Cards 
with a corner cut off, half an inch in depth, were 
considered by ParHament sufficiently mutilated 
to render them unfit to be used in play. The 
public, however, put up with the inconvenience of 
using cut-corner cards rather than pay the high 
tax. In fact, the law was found powerless to pre- 
vent evasions; every fresh enactment produced 
some fresh dodge for driving through it. It 
was therefore decided to diminish the duty, and 
to legalize, under certain restrictions, the sale 
of second-hand cards. In the year 1828, the 
half-a-crown duty was reduced to one shilling. 
The shilling duty was to be denoted on the 
ace of spades. This was the duty one shilling" 
ace, called Old Frizzle," on account of the elabo- 
rate flourishes which adorned it, with which all 
card-players, prior to 1864, were familiar. The 
aces were supplied on credit to the card-makers, 
the duty being exacted from time to time on 
their making up their packs for sale, when an offi- 
cer had to attend to put on the wrappers, and to 
take an account of the numbers. Second-hand 
cards were permitted to be sold, except by licensed 
card-makers, provided the words " second-hand 



CARD ESSAYS. 



cards*' were legibly printed or written on the 
wrapper. 

Under the protection of this permission the 
sale of so-called second-hand cards flourished more 
vigorously than ever. The less scrupulous manu- 
facturers used to make works'* of waste by the 
ton, for the purpose of sale under the name of 
second-hand cards. Indeed the clandestine manu- 
facture of cards sold as second-hand was so exten- 
sive, that one person alone owned to the sale of 
more unstamped packs in one year than the 
whole number which, according to the revenue 
returns, had been charged with duty in the same 
period, that is to say, upwards of 260,000 packs.*' 
Consequently, by 25 Vict. (June, 1862) the duty 
was fixed at three-pence per pack, the alteration 
to commence on ist September, 1862. The 
financial year ends 31st March, therefore in 1862, 
half the year the duty was one shilling, the other 
half three-pence. In the seventh Report of the 
Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue, 
1863, it is stated that the alteration from one shil- 
ling to three-pence was made in the hope of 
suppressing the enormous evasion of the duty 
which notoriously prevailed." At the same time 
that the amount was reduced, the form in which 
the duty was levied was altered. Several other 
reasons for the alteration are given in the Report. 
The Commissioners remark that " there were 



CARD ESSAYS. 



Ill 



many disadvantages connected with these arrange- 
ments," [/.^., with the arrangements which pre- 
vailed prior to 1863.] The principal disadvan- 
tages were the expense incurred in printing the 
aces, and the difficulty of adjusting the card- 
makers' accounts. The card-makers were always 
in arrear; they always had more aces suppHed 
than were accounted for in the packs made up for 
sale ; and though the department had the power 
of taking an account of the stock not made up for 
sale, and held by the card-makers, and of charging 
for aces not accounted for, the power was but oc- 
casionally exercised, on account of the practical 
difficulty of taking exact stock without serious 
inconvenience to the makers. Moreover, when 
stock was taken, a deficiency of aces always ap- 
peared, even with the most respectable makers, 
who were above the suspicion of intentionally de- 
frauding the revenue. This deficiency was, in 
many instances, allowed to stand over, so that in 
practice the amount thus owing was as good as 
remitted. 

According to the statement of the Commis- 
sioners, it appeared that, from the mode in 
which the ace of spades was necessarily prepared 
at the office, that important card was always dif- 
ferent from the rest of the pack, and that this dif- 
ference, though slight, was to those who were 
aware of it, readily perceptible by the touch/' so 



112 



CARD ESSAYS. 



that, in fact, the duty, " which was meant to be 
pro tanto a discouragement to gambling, was abet- 
ting the designs of the card sharper.'* 

The difference here alluded to is as to the size 
/ oi the card ; this might have been the case with 
small makers using imperfect machinery; but 
manufacturers of repute, who could properly 
manipulate the cards, were able to turn out the 
ace of spades precisely like the other cards as to 
size, thickness, and feel. 

The idea that the duty was meant to discourage 
gambUng is purely imaginary. It was meant 
simply to increase the revenue in aid of Her Maj- 
esty's occasions and as was well pointed out 
in the petition presented to Parliament in the reign 
of Queen Anne, a tax only hinders the common 
sort who play for innocent diversion, and not sharp 
gamesters who play for many pounds a game. 

Under the present system the ace of spades is 
free from duty, and is printed by the manufacturers 
in the same way as the other cards. The duty is 
now levied on the seal or wrapper in which each 
pack must be enclosed before it is sold ; and the 
duty applies to all full-sized playing-cards, whether 
new or second-hand. The wrappers are supplied 
from Somerset House as the card-makers require 
them, and have the name of the manufacturer 
printed on them. 

Thus : suppose a new pack is opened and, as is 



CARD ESSAYS. 



113 



the case at most clubs, is used only once. Under 
the old law the soiled pack was exempt from fur- 
ther duty if the words ^^second-hand cards" were 
legibly written or printed on the wrapper. Now, 
however, second-hand cards before being resold 
must be enclosed in a fresh wrapper and pay a 
second duty. 

In 1 861 the amount of duty received at one 
shilling a pack was ;^I4,533, 290,660 packs being 
sealed. In 1862 — mostly at one shilling, but a 
small part at threepence — the duty produced 
£'^?)j^?)7i notwithstanding that about 160,000 more 
packs were sealed than before. When the new 
regime came into full operation in 1863, 732,960 
packs were sealed, a very large increase when 
compared with the number stamped under the old 
regime. Nevertheless, the receipts, owing to the 
reduction, amounted only to ;^9,i62 , entaiHng a 
loss of about ;^4,45o. After 1867, however, the 
number of packs sealed steadily increased, to 
737,120, 813,920, 968,800, and so on; and in 1873 
the number stamped was over a milHon. In 1877- 
78 the duty rose to ;^ 14, 139, so that at the pres- 
ent time the smaller duty produces as much as 
the larger one did within a few pounds. And 
what is highly satisfactory is that there is no 
reason for supposing that there is now any evasion 
of the duty. 



MOLIERE ON PIQUET. 



"Come, you shall sit down to piquet." 

— School for Scandaly Act i., SC. a. 



MOLLIERE, like our Shakespeare, seems to have 
had a universal knowledge. Whatever he wrote 
about he probed, as it were, to the bottom. 
Among other things he must have had a pro- | 
found knowledge of Piquet, or must have ob- 
tained his information from players of a very 
superior class, as the following example will de- 
monstrate. 

In the year 1661 appeared the comedy of "Les 
Facheux." This play contains a somewhat re- 
markable Piquet hand, which is interesting as 
showing that Piquet was at that time a popular 
game in France, and also as illustrating the mode 
in which the game was then played, and, further, 
as affording room for instructive comment. The 
following is a free translation of the passage re- 
lating to Piquet : — 



CARD ESSA VS. 



''Console me, Marquis, for the extraordinary 
partie at Piquet I lost yesterday against St. Bou- 
vain, a man to whom I could deal and give fifteen 
points. It is a maddening coup which crushes 
me, and which makes me wish all players at the 
devil ; — a coup enough to make a man go and 
hang himself. I only wanted two points ; he re- 
quired a pique. I dealt ; he proposed a fresh deal. 
I, having pretty good cards in all suits, refused. 
He takes six cards. Now observe mv bad luck: 
I carry ace of clubs ; ace, king, knave, ten, eight 
of hearts ; and throw out (as I considered it best 
to keep my point) king, queen of diamonds, and 
queen, ten of spades. I took in the queen to my 
point, which made me a quint major. To my 
amazement, my adversary showed the ace and a 
sixieme minor in diamonds, the suit of which I 
had discarded king and queen. But, as he re- 
quired a pique, I was not alarmed, expecting to 
make at least two points in play. In addition to 
his seven diamonds he had four spades, and, play- 
ing them, he put me to a card, for I did not know 
which of my aces to keep. I thought it best to 
throw the ace of hearts, but he had discarded all 
his four clubs, and capoted me with the six of 
hearts ! I was so vexed I could not say a word. 
Confound it! why do I have such frightful luck?" 

In order to render the hand intelligible, it is 
necessary to bear in mind that at the time " Les 



CARD ESSAYS, 



Facheux'' was written Piquet was played with 
thirty-six cards, the sixes being included in the | 
pack. There were twelve cards in the stock, in- \ 
stead of eight as now, of which the elder hand \ 
might take eight, the younger four. The cards | 
below a ten did not count in play ; or rather, ac- 5 
cording to the Academy of Play," they some- \ 
times tell one for every card they lead or win, - 
whether a tenth card or not, so that when two i 
players sit down, who are not acquainted with j 
each other's play, it is customary to ask. Whether | 
you count all the cards or not?" In the hand '[ 
given the nines, eights, sevens, and sixes do not j 
count in play. | 

Molifere has skilfully heaped up the various 
small worries that may annoy an irritable player j 
during a hand. The score is one source of annoy- , 
ance : St. Bouvain wants a pique, Alcippe (his ad- ; 
versary) only wants two, and has such cards that 1 
though a pique is not impossible it is the highest ^ 
degree improbable. As Fielding Tom Jones") j 
truly remarks, " The gamester who loses a party ■ 
at Piquet by a single point, laments his bad luck : 
ten times as much as he who never came within ' 
a prospect of the game." Again, Alcippe has the 
chance offered him of a fresh deal, which implies ' 
that his adversary has very bad cards — so bad, 
that he deems losing next door to certain. The 
fresh deal is refused, and, notwithstanding, St. j 



CARD ESSAYS. 



117 



Bouvain wins. Then the elder hand, having a 
right to take eight cards, only takes six, which is 
a disagreeable surprise after proposing a fresh 
deal, as Alcippe would naturally wonder how it 
could be that, notwithstanding the bad hand, St. 
Bouvain can afford to leave two cards ; and, lastly, 
Alcippe is put to a card, which is by no means 
pleasant at any time, but is most unpleasant of 
all when you have two aces and require one trick 
only to win, and must lose if you keep the wrong 
one. An imaginative reader, too, might discover 
another aggravation. Alcippe, though he declares 
he lost by bad luck, really loses by bad play (as 
will be presently shown), and he expresses his in- 
tention, in a passage not translated, of going 
about showing the hand to everybody. It will 
certainly happen that some'' good-natured friend** 
will point out to him in a day or two how he 
might have won. 

Let us point the moral of the hand by taking 
the office of that friend. In order to do so, it will 
be advisable to follow the plan adopted by Dr. 
Pole in the case of Belinda's celebrated hand at 
Ombre, viz., to set out all the cards, supplying 
those not named by Moliere, in the most probable 
combinations suitable to the hand. 

St. Bouvain's hand, then, would be sixifeme mi- 
nor in diamonds (/.^., knave, ten, nine, eight, seven, 
six) ; four clubs, say king, queen, nine, seven ; and 



n8 



CARD ESSA YS, 



nine, seven of hearts. He discards the four clubs 

and the two hearts, keeping his sixieme, and j 

takes in the ace of diamonds, the six of hearts, \ 

and four spades, say the ace, king, knave, and | 

eight. f 

Alcippe deals himself king, queen of diamonds ; i 

queen, ten of spades ; ace, king, knave, ten, eight I 

of hearts ; and three clubs, say ace, knave, eight. \ 

The knave and eight are given that there may be | 

no tierce against him in this suit ; this seems to | 

be intended, as the Author, with probably the > 

same object, gives him the eight of hearts. Also ^ 

Alcippe must not hold a trio of kings, queens or ^ 

tens, or he wins, as any trio is good ; consequently \ 

his clubs must be knave and eight. In addition, | 

the knave of clubs in his hand prevents his adver* i 

sary from holding a trio. He discards the dia- j 

monds, spades, and knave, eight of clubs, and ; 

takes in nine, seven, six of spades, queen of hearts, : 

and ten, six of clubs. \ 

The hand is then played, with the following re- \ 

suit : St. Bouvain's point and sixieme are good for ! 

twenty-three , three counting diamonds played > 

make twenty-six, and three counting spades, • 

twenty-nine. St. Bouvain has now played seven ; 

diamonds and four spades, eleven cards, and re- | 
mains with one card, the six of hearts ; Alcippe 
remains with ace of hearts and ace of clubs, and he 
has to play one of these to the last spade led by 



CARD ESSAYS, 



119 



St. Bouvain. Alcippe plays the heart, and St. 
Bouvain, winning the trick with his last card, the 
six of hearts, counts one for the last trick, which 
he would not have counted had he lost the trick ; 
and he piques and capots his opponent. The 
capot which wins the game would suffice without 
the pique, supposing St. Bouvain to have taken 
in only two counting spadee ; and, indeed this is 
the explanation of the hand given by the French 
commentators. But it appears more probable 
that this is not the result intended by Moliere. 
He carefully states that the queen, ten of spades 
were discarded by Alcippe, leaving us to infer 
that St. Bouvain may hold three counting spades. 
Moliere makes Alcippe repeat that there is no 
pique against him, and yet he is piqued after all 
— an additional grievance, although it does not 
affect the result. 

It is obvious that St. Bouvain plays the hand 
faultlessly, and it is equally clear that Alcippe 
(notwithstanding his boast of superior play) loses 
the game by not discarding to the score, as no 
doubt the good-natured friend already alluded to 
sooner or later points out to him. If he discards 
properly he must make two points, unless his ad- 
versary carries all the diamonds, and either the 
quart-minor in spades with the ace, or a tierce in 
spades with ace, king ; and even then Alcippe may 
win with a trio of kings or queens, The chance 



I20 



CARD ESSA YS. 



that Alcippe will take in any one of the diamonds, 
or any one of the spades, or the king of clubs, or 
the queen of hearts, in six cards {i,e. one of six- 
teen named cards out of twenty-four), is so enor- 
mously in his favor, that he would be justified 
in considering there is no pique against him. His 
game then, playing for two points, is simply to 
protect himself from a capot by keeping guards to 
his weak suits, and throwing out his point, which 
at this score is useless to him. If he discards ace, 
knave, ten, eight of hearts, and knave, eight of 
clubs, he is morally certain to win. This is a 
good illustration of discarding to the score, 
and affords a lesson to beginners at Piquet. It 
will be observed that the ace of hearts is discard- 
ed instead of the king, for this reason. Any ace 
taken in wins the game, whether the trio of aces 
is kept or not ; but the king of clubs or king of 
spades taken in does not win against a seven-card 
suit in diamonds, and ace with quart-minor in 
spades, or ace, king, accompanied by a tierce in 
spades, unless the kings are kept. 

Alcippe again plays badly in throwing the ace 
of hearts to the last spade. Had he gone on the 
chances, he would have won. It is evident that, 
in order to save the game, St. Bouvain's last card 
must be a non-counting card ; for St. Bouvain, 
having twenty-nine and the lead, gains a pique if 
his remaining card is a counting card, because the 



CARD ESSAYS. 



121 



point made in play by the leader counts before 
the point made in play by the winner of the trick. 
Now St. Bouvain may hold one of three non- 
counting hearts, viz., the nine, the seven, or the 
six ; but he can only hold one of two non-count- 
ing clubs, viz., the nine or the seven. This being 
so, there are three chances to two in favor of his 
last card being a non-counting heart as against a 
non-counting club ; and, therefore, Alcippe should 
keep the heart in preference to the club. This is 
a point in the game well worthy of attention, as, 
if it were not essential for St. Bouvain's last card 
to be a non-counting card, the club would be the 
suit to keep, there being four clubs out and only 
three hearts. 



THE DUFFER'S WHIST MAXIMS. 



" Printed for the benefit of families, and to prevent scolding." 

—Bob Short, 



I. Do not confuse your mind by reading a par- 
eel of books. Surely youVe a right to play your 
own game, if you like. Who are the people that 
wrote these books? What business have they to 
set up their views as superior to yours ? Many 
of these writers lay down this rule : Lead origi- 
nally from your strongest suit don't you do it 
unless it suits your hand. It may be good in 
some hands, but it doesn't follow that it should 
be in all. Lead a single card sometimes, or at 
any rate from your weakest suit, so as to make 
your Httle trumps when the suit is returned. By 
following this course in leads, you will nine times 
out of ten ruin both your own and your partner s 
hands ; but the tenth time you will perhaps make 
several little trumps, which would have been use- 
less otherwise. In addition to this, if sometimes 
you lead from your strongest suit, and sometimes 



CARD ESSAYS, 



"3 



from your weakest, it puzzles the adversaries, and 
they never can tell what you have led from. 

2. Seldom return your partner's lead : you have 
as many cards in your hand as he has, it is a free 
country, and why should you submit to his dicta- 
tion? Play the suit you deem best, without re- 
gard to any preconceived theories. It is an ex- 
cellent plan to lead out first one suit and then 
another. This mode of play is extremely per- 
plexing to the whole table. If you have a fancy 
for books you will find this system approved by 
''J. C." He says, '^You mystify alike your ad- 
versaries and your partner. You turn the game 
upside down, reduce it to one of chance, and, in 
the scramble, may have as good a chance as your 
neighbors." 

3. Especially do not return your partner's lead 
in trumps, for not doing so now and then turns 
out to be advantageous. Who knows but you 
may make a trump by holding up, which you 
certainly cannot do if your trumps are all out ? 
Never mind the fact that you will generally lose 
tricks by refusing to play your partner's game. 
Whenever you succeed in making a trump by 
your refusal, be sure to point out to your part- 
ner how fortunate it was that you played as you 
did. Perhaps your partner is a much better 
player than you, and he may on some former 
occasion, with an exceptional hand, have declined 



124 



CARD ESSAYS, 



to return your lead of trumps. Make a note of 
this. Remind him of it if he complains of your 
neglecting to return his lead. It is an unanswer- 
able argument. 

4. There are a lot of rules, to which, however, 
you need pay no attention, about leading from se- 
quences. What can it matter which card of a 
sequence you lead? The sequence cards are all 
of the same value, and one of them is as likely to 
win the trick as another. Besides, if you look at 
the books, you'll find the writers don't even know 
their own minds. They advise in some cases that 
you should lead the highest, in others the lowest 
of the sequence ; and in leading from ace, king, 
queen, they actually recommend you to begin 
with the middle card. Any person of common 
sense must infer from this that it don't matter 
which card of a sequence you lead. 

5. There are also a number of rules about the 
play of the second, third, and fourth hands, but 
they are quite unworthy serious consideration. 
The exceptions are almost as numerous as the 
rules, so if you play by no rule at all you are 
about as likely to be right as wrong. 

6. Before leading trumps always first get rid of 
all the winning ca,rds in your plain suit. You 
will not then be bothered with the lead after 
trumps are out, and you thus shift all the respon- 
sibility of mistakes on to your partner. But if 



CARD ESSAYS, 



your partner has led a suit, be careful when you 
lead trumps to keep in your hand the best card 
of his lead. By this means, if he goes on with 
his suit, you are more likely to get the lead after 
trumips are out, which, the books say, is a great 
advantage. 

7. Take every opportunity of playing false 
cards, both high and low. For by deceiving all 
round you will now and then win an extra trick. 
It is often said, Oh, but you deceive your part- 
ner." That is very true. But then, as you have 
two adversaries and only one partner, it is obvi- 
ous that by running dark you play two to one in 
your own favor. Besides this, it is very gratify- 
ing, when your trick succeeds, to have taken in 
your opponents, and to have won the applause of 
an ignorant gallery. If you play in a common- 
place way, even your partner scarcely thanks you. 
Anybody could have done the same. 

8. Whatever you do, never attend to the score, 
and don't watch the fall of the cards. There is 
no earthly reason for doing either of these. As 
for the score, your object is to make as many as 
you can. The game is five, but, if you play to 
score six or seven, small blame to you. Never 
mind running the risk of not getting another 
chance of making even five. Keep as many pic- 
tures and winning cards as you can in your hand. 
They are pretty to look at, and if you remain 



126 



CARD ESSA YS. 



with the best of each suit you effectually prevent 
the adversaries from bringing in a lot of small 
cards at the end of the hand. As to the fall of 
the cards, it is quite clear that it is of no use to 
watch them ; for, if everybody at the table is 
trying to deceive you, in accordance with Maxim 
7, the less you notice the cards they play the less 
you will be taken in. 

9. Whenever you have ruined your hand and 
your partner*s by playing in the way here recom- 
mended, you should always say that it made no 
difference.*' It sometimes happens that it has 
made no difference, and then your excuse is clear- 
ly valid. And it will often happen that your 
partner does not care to argue the point with you, 
in which case your remark will make it clear to 
everybody that you have a profound insight into 
the game. If, however, your partner chooses to 
be disagreeable, and succeeds in proving you to 
be utterly ignorant of the first elements of Whist, 
stick to it that you played right, that good play 
will sometimes turn out unfortunately, and accuse 
your partner of judging by results. This will gen- 
erally silence him. 

10. Invariably blow up your partner at the end 
of every hand. It is not only a most gentleman- 
like employment of spare time, but it gains you 
the reputation of being a first-rate player. 



DECISIONS 

OF 

THE LATE MR. CLAY 



DECISIONS 

OF 

THE LATE Mr. CLAY. 



ON THE PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD 
GUIDE DECISIONS. 



** Is that the law ? 

Thyself shalt see the act : 
For, as thou urgest justice, be assured 
Thou shalt have justice." 

— Merchant of Venice^ Act iv.,sc. i. 



It would hardly be fair to the memory of Mr. 
Clay to print the following Decisions without 
some preliminary explanation of the general 
principles which should be present to the mind 
of every one who is likely to read them. 

There is a popular belief that card-laws are 
intended to prevent cheating. This belief, how- 
ever, is altogether erroneous. The penalty of 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



cheating is exclusion from Society. Card-laws 
cannot touch cheating, nor punish it. The inten- 
tion of card-laws is : i. To preserve the harmony 
and to determine the ordering of the card-table ; 
and 2. To prevent any player from obtaining an 
unfair advantage. 

By unfair * is not meant intentional unfairness. 
By accident or carelessness any player may gain 
an advantage to which he is not entitled. Here 
the law steps in, and seeks to prevent the gaining 
of such an advantage. And, be it observed, the 
law does not attempt to punish the accidental 
or careless offender, but only to obtain restitu- 
tion. 

The above considerations lead at once to two 
fundamental principles on which card Decisions 
should be framed. 

I. As the offending player is credited with bona 
fideSy the intention of the player interested must 
not be taken into account. The case must be 
judged by the amount of injury which the irregu- 
larity may inflict on the opponents ; and 2. The 
penalty must be proportioned as closely as possible 
to the amount of gain which may accrue to the 
offender. 

For example : The dealer, by his own fault, ex- 
poses a card in deahng. Possibly the dealer has 
seen it, and the adversaries have not. They have 
a right to see it ; and they then have the option 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



of a fresh deal. If they choose not to have a 
fresh deal, it is to be presumed they consider 
that, on the whole, the dealer and his partner will 
gain no advantage, or may even be at a disadvan- 
tage, if the position of the card in question is 
known. 

If the law were that the dealer loses his deal on 
exposing a card, that would be a punishment, as 
he would have to forego the advantage of the 
deal. By giving the adversaries the option of a 
fresh deal, they are protected from injury, and the 
dealer is not punished. 

The laws of Whist only afford one example of 
punishment, viz. : in the revoke penalty. The 
offence, however, is very gross, and there are 
practical difificulties in the way of adjusting the 
penalty, with precision, to the gain which might 
ensue in consequence of the revoke. 

In a perfect code there should be a penalty for 
all errors or irregularities by which the offender 
or his partner might profit. And it follows that 
there should be no penalty for errors by which he 
who commits them cannot possibly gain an advan- 
tage. But, as Mr. Clay says : — However care- 
fully laws may have been framed, cases will not 
unfrequently occur for which it has been impos- 
sible to provide, and which should therefore be 
referred for decision to some player of recognized 
judgment, well acquainted with the laws of Whist. 



132 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



If he happens to be a good lawyer to boot, so 
much the better; for I have known many ques- 
tions at this game not unworthy of a lawyer's 
practised acuteness, and of the habit which his 
profession gives him of weighing right and 
wrong.'* 



Claiming Honors. 

Law 6. — Honors, unless claimed before the 
trump card of the following deal is turned up, 
cannot be scored. 

Case, — A B claim the game," and score it. 
After the trump card of the following deal is 
turned up Y Z (their adversaries) object that A B 
have not claimed honors. 

Decision, — It is necessary, and has always been 
the law by tradition, to make it obligatory to call 
honors, as well as to score them, as points merely 
scored may easily escape notice. 

It never, however, can have been intended to 
stretch the rule to such a case as this, in which, by 
claiming ' the game,' attention is as strongly 
drawn to the claim of honors as it well can be. 

Such a claim can hardly have been made, 
except for the purpose of having the point de- 
cided, and, in spite of the strict letter of the law, 
I consider the claim bad. 

Other cases may be found where the rigid 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



interpretation of a necessary law would inflict a 
wholly unnecessary wrong ; but I know no case 
in which such interpretation has been insisted on. 

If Y or Z had had any doubt about the 
honors, and if there had been no evidence be- 
yond the assertion of his adversaries, the law 
would have protected him ; and he ought to re- 
quire nothing more. 

" If Y or Z tells me that he was in no way called 
upon to admit the honors, I can only answer that 
this is a case between him and his conscience. I 
think he did right in making the admission, and 
have little doubt but that he will do the same on 
any other occasion. 

In giving this opinion, not without hesitation, 
I bear in mind the extreme general inconvenience 
of allowing any lax interpretation of a law.'* 

It should be stated, in order to explain the 
reason for the first and third paragraphs of the 
decision, that it was given very shortly after the 
adoption of the present code, and therefore before 
Law 6, as quoted above, was generally known. 

Misdirection by Adversaries. 

Case. — A, B, C are playing dummy, C having 
the dummy. 

It is dummy's deal. By mistake, C deals for 
himself instead o\ for dummy, and turns up. 



134 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



Then, seeing the trump card on the table, C says, 
Whose is this?" 

A B reply, Dummy's," imagining C had dealt 
for his dummy. 

C then sorted dummy's hand, and placed the 
turn-up card with it. 

It was then discovered that dummy had four- 
teen cards, and C twelve. 

C then says, Oh ! it is a misdeal." 

AB say, **No; the mistake is obvious. Just 
put the turn-up card to your hand, and all will 
be right." 

It was decided by a bystander to be a misdeal, 
which was unfortunate for A B, as they had game 
in their hands. 

Was it a misdeal ? 

Decision, — If it is allowed, or can be proved, 
that dummy's partner dealt, — -whether in or out 
of his turn matters not, as the deal was completed 
without objection, — -the deal is good. The trump 
card has been placed in one part of the table 
instead of another ; — viola tout. Every one knows 
it, and it can be put in its right place, — before a 
card has been played, — without inconvenience. 

"This is all the more strong, in the present 
case, as the card was wrongly placed in conse- 
quence of the mistaken intimation of the adver- 
sary. 

Strictly, perhaps, the dealer ought not to have 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



asked his adversary to help him, but should have 
thought over the puzzle himself, which he would 
probably have found out [by counting his cards]. 
This gives the adversaries a right not to answer, 
but does not excuse them for answering wrongly." 



Card Jumping into Adversary's Hand. 

Case, — A, in taking up his cards, the deal being 
completed, bends a card so that it jumps on Y's 
(the adversary's) packet. At that moment Y 
takes up his hand, and mixes the card with it, so 
that no one can tell which iB the added card. 

What is to be done ? 

Decision, — This is one of those queer cases, — 
assisted by no analogy which occurs to me, — 
which can only be the subject of what I should 
call a fancy decision. 

I agree with you [the Author had already 
given his opinion] that the dealer must not suffer 
by an irregularity which had its origin in an ad- 
versary. Nor can I acquit Y of some carelessness ; 
and I think that justice is satisfied by A's drawing 
a card at hazard from Y's hand. 

If A had been the dealer s partner, I should 
give the choice of a new deal to his adversaries. 
They electing to stand the deal, befof^e seeing their 
cards, a card to be drawn at hazard. The cards 
seen, nothing remains, I think, but to draw one/* 



136 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



It should be added, for the benefit of those not 
conversant with the laws of Whist, that taking up 
the cards is always considered, in deciding cases, 
as equivalent to seeing them. 

m 

Declaring a Card, but Omitting to Play it. 

Law 69. — If any one omit playing to a former 
trick, and such error be not discovered until he 
has played to the next, the adversaries may claim 
a new deal ; should they decide that the deal 
stand good, the surplus card at the end of the 
hand is considered to have been played to the 
imperfect trick, but does not constitute a revoke 
therein. 

Case, — A B versus Y Z. A leads a heart ; Y 
plays knave; B calls out "king,'' but does not 
play any card ; Z plays a small heart. 

B takes up, turns and quits the trick, consisting 
of three cards, and leads another card. Two or 
three tricks are played, and then another heart is 
led, and B plays the king, when it is discovered 
that B, having declared the king, omitted to play 
it. 

What is the rule ? 

Decision, — The case was, in the first instance, 
submitted to the Author, who decided as fol- 
lows : — 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



137 



On discovery of the error, B must add the king- 
to the imperfect trick. The words at the end 
of the hand/' in Law 69, do not signify that B 
must wait till the end of the hand before rectify- 
ing his error ; but amount merely to a direction 
what is to be done with the surplus card if the 
hand is played out before the error is discovered. 
Or, it may be, and generally would be, that the 
player omitting to play to a trick does not de- 
clare a card ; in that case, the surplus card cannot 
be added till the end of the hand, because no one 
can say which of the offender's cards is to be sub- 
tracted from his hand. 

It might be argued that declaring a card is 
equivalent to playing it, and that, therefore, B has 
not omitted to play to a trick. But, looking at 
the consequences that might ensue if players were 
allowed to declare their cards instead of playing 
them, I think a person declaring a card and not 
playing it does omit to play to a trick within the 
meaning of Law 69, and that the adversaries have 
the option of a fresh deal. 

The Author's decision was objected to by a 
player for whose opinion he entertained a high 
regard. Consequently, he submitted the case to 
Clay, who favored him with the decision below : — 
I quite agree with your decision in this case, 
viz.: that Y Z have a right to elect whether the 
deal shall stand or not, and that, if they decide to 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



go on, the king of hearts should be added to the 
imperfect trick. 

It seems that this decision is challenged, and 
that the objection made to it is thus expressed : 
— * Either B has omitted to play to the trick or 
he has not, and it ought to be in the option of 
the adversaries to decide this. If they decide 
that B has not omitted to play to the trick, the 
king of hearts is to be added to the trick to which 
it belongs, and no further penalty remains. On 
the other hand, if the adversaries decide that B 
has omitted to play to the trick, they can call a 
fresh deal. If they elect to stand the deal, then 
B must play out the hand with a surplus card, 
the card at the end belonging to the imperfect 
trick, as enacted in Law 69.* The objection is 
ingenious, but fails to convince me. Law 69 con- 
templated -that which would almost invariably be 
the case in such an error as this, namely, that it 
would not be found out until the end of the hand. 
But as, in this instance, the error is early detected, 
and is of very easy remedy, it seems unnecessarily 
pedantic to abandon the remedy in deference to 
the letter of a law which could not contemplate 
this particular case. 

Your critic proposes, to my mind, an insuffi- 
cient punishment ; nor can Y Z, by their election, 
decide that there has been no omission. They 
cannot alter the fact, and it is beyond doubt that 



CLAY'S DECISIONS. 



139 



there has been omission. Availing themselves of 
the general principle, which allows considerable 
latitude in construing an act as against an of- 
fender, they decide that this imperfect act of play- 
ing shall be deemed a perfect act. But they do 
more; — they have a common-sense right to do 
more ; — indeed, they are bound in common-sense 
to do more ; they take care that the imperfect act 
of playing is made perfect, and they place the 
king of hearts in the trick to which it belonged 
from the moment of the declaration to play it. 

If this be not so, observe what may happen. 
To adopt the form of your critic, either the trick 
with three cards in it is complete, or it is not. 
Y Z, by continuing the play of the hand, have 
decided that the trick is complete ; therefore, the 
king of hearts has taken a trick ; the suit is played 
again, and the king of hearts takes a second trick. 
It seems to me impossible that this can be per- 
mitted knowingly; and if in your decision there 
be — which I do not admit — some difficulty or de- 
fective logic, as suggested by your critic, it would 
be, to my thinking, quite worth while to ride over 
it, in order to avoid the possible occurrence of an 
absurdity so monstrous as that which I have de- 
scribed. Two tricks taken by one card ! A trick, 
notoriously imperfect, taken as perfect in one 
sense and imperfect in another! The ownership 
of a trick to remain unnecessarily in abeyance 



140 



CLAY'S DECISIONS. 



until a surplus card, the existence of which every 
one knows, and could have prevented, is found at 
the end of the hand ! This surplus card possibly 
being an advantage to a wrong-doer! All this 
cumbrous rubbish is cleared away by your very 
simple and sensible decision. 

" I should have more to say, but that I foresee 
that it would raise a more important question, 
which I would rather not stir." 

What this more important question is can now 
never be known. No doubt Clay did not care to 
spend the requisite time over card decisions, as 
he was fully occupied and wrote under pressure. 
The original of this decision is written by an 
amanuensis, to whom, the Author beheves, Clay 
dictated it while he was dressing, that being the 
only moment he could spare. 

The Author can hardly help feeling that the 
more important question was probably whether a 
surplus card added to an imperfect trick at the 
end of a hand can win the trick. In his decision 
Clay seems to assume that it can. It is a point 
of extreme difficulty ; on the whole, the Author 
is of opinion that it cannot (see The Field of Feb- 
ruary 27th, 1875), though at the time the case of 
declaring a card but omitting to play it was sub- 
mitted to him (December, 1866) he thought it 
could. 

Clay's decision on the original case was much 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



141 



canvassed at the time ; but finally it was generally 
allowed to be sound. 



Penalty for Renouncing in Error with 
MORE than One Card. 

Law 76. — If a player discover his mistake [of 
not following suit when able] in time to save a 
revoke, the adversaries, whenever they think fit, 
may call the card thus played in error, or may 
require him to play his highest or lowest card to 
that trick in which he has renounced. 

Case. — In playing to a trick, A plays two cards 
together, neither being of the suit led. Before a 
revoke is established A finds that he can follow 
suit. He is then required by his adversaries to 
play his highest card of the suit led. Can A then 
take up both the cards played in error? 

It was argued that according to Law 76 A can 
only take up one card, and must leave the other 
to be called. If this contention holds, the ques- 
tion arises, Which of the two cards is A entitled 
to take up ? 

It is further pointed out that if the word card" 
in Law 76 is to be construed as card or cards," 
then A might play in a packet every card in his 
hand, not of the suit led, and on being required 
to play his highest or lowest of the suit led, might 



142 CLAY'S DECISIONS, 

take up all the cards played in error, when the 
penalty would be insufficient. 

Decision, — I feel that Law 76 meets the case. 
Either the exposed cards can be called, or the 
highest or lowest of the suit led/* 

This decision does not, in words, meet the ob- 
jection that in the case of the playing of several 
cards together, calling the highest or lowest of the 
suit led is an insufficient penalty. 

Probably Clay hardly thought it worth while 
to combat this objection. The reply is evident. 
The adversaries have the option of calling all the 
cards played together, or of calling the highest or 
lowest of the suit led. They will naturally elect 
the penalty which they deem the more severe. 

If it were to their advantage to call all the ex- 
posed cards, they then simply allow the offender 
to play whichever card he pleases to the current 
trick. 

Clay's decision was much canvassed at the time, 
and it was questioned whether he had the right to 
make a verbal alteration in Law 76, and to read 
the words ''the card played in error,'* as ''the 
cards played in error.'* 

On carefully considering this point, the Author 
is of opinion that Clay's decision is correct. It 
disposes of all difficulties (as, for example, of the 
question which of the cards is to be deemed 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



played to the trick), and cuts the knot simply 
and effectually. 



Disputed Bet on the Odd Trick. 

Case. — A bets B that B will not get the odd 
trick. B is the dealer, and makes a misdeal. 

A claims the bet, on the ground that B did not 
get the odd trick. 

Decision, — Clay wrote, I am of opinion that 
the bet is off." In this view he was supported 
by several members of the Whist Laws Commit- 
tee of the Portland Club of 1864. 

Another member of that Committee, Major 
Adams, wrote, My opinion is that A has no 
right to claim the bet. Considered on equitable 
grounds, he would have the option of claiming 
the continuation of the bet, after B has forfeited 
his deal." 

Clay's opinion clearly assumes that the bet was 
made not on the next odd trick, but on the result 
of the deal in progress ; and, that deal having 
proved abortive, the bet is null and void. 

The referees were unanimous that A does not 
win ; for the fact of B's making a misdeal does 
not lose him the odd trick. If it did, and B's ad- 
versaries were at four, B would lose the game, 
which is absurd. B cannot lose, nor can A win, 
until an odd trick has been played for. 



144 



CLAY'S DECISIONS. 



The question then resolves itself into this : — Is 
the bet off, or is it decided by the result of the 
next deal ? 

In the Author's judgment, the case can only be 
decided on a report of the exact words made use 
of when the bet was proposed and accepted. 
Assuming, as the case is stated, that the exact 
words made use of are quoted, the Author would 
hold that the bet is on the next odd trick, irre- 
spective of whose deal it is. B, when he has the 
deal, backs himself to win the odd trick. If he 
misdeals it is his fault, and the Author cannot see 
that his misdeahng ought to relieve him of the 
bet. If the terms of the bet had been "I back 
the deal for the trick," and the dealer misdeals, 
the bet is off, as the deal on which the bet was 
made is never completed, and consequently the 
result of it can never be ascertained. 



Time for Correcting a Renounce in Error. 

Lav^ 85.- -Any one during the play of a trick, 
or after the four cards are played, and before, but 
not after, they are touched for the purpose of 
gathering them together, may demand that the 
cards be placed before their respective players. 

Law 73 AND 76. — A revoke is established if 
the trick in which it occurs be turned and 
quitted. 



CLA K'5 DECISIONS. 



145 



If a player discover his mistake in time to save 
a revoke, the adversaries may call the card played 
in error, or may require him to play [i,e.^ to fol- 
low suit with] his highest or lowest card. 

Case, — A B are partners against Y Z. Y leads, 
the others play, one or more of them not follow- 
ing suit. B wins the trick, and A gathers it ; but, 
before turning it, feeling uncertain whether he 
has renounced or not, says, Partner, what was 

led r 

Y Z object that, under Law 85, A is too late, 
the trick being gathered, and consequently that 
the question must not be repHed to. 

Decision, — On the case being referred to the 
Author, he decided that the question was put in 
an improper form. A has no right to ask what 
was led what card was led), but, being in 
time to save a revoke, he is entitled to be inform- 
ed what suit was led. If Y Z are bona fide under 
the impression that A wishes a card to be placed, 
they may object that he is too late. But on A's 
explaining that he only desires to ascertain 
whether he has followed suit, Y Z are bound to 
permit A to be informed as to the suit led. 

To this it was objected that, the cards played 
being of different suits. A, by being informed 
what suit was led, and knowing who had won the 
trick, would (or might) hence obtain the same in- 



146 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



formation as though the cards were placed. This 
is true ; but the Author maintained that it does 
not invaHdate A's right to save a revoke, if in the 
course of obtaining information in order to avoid 
the revoke penalty he gains collateral information 
to which he is not directly entitled. 

The Author's correspondents not being satis- 
fied, he had recourse to Clay, who wrote as fol- 
lows : — 

^' I have no doubt your decision is correct. 
The ground for my opinion is that the laws have 
always been very tender in respect of revokes, the 
mistake being of easy occurrence, and the penalty 
very severe. There is, no doubt, no law strictly 
applicable to this particular case ; nor can there 
be a special law for the man^ similar cases which 
may easily occur ; but the case is clearly within 
the indulgence which the law extends to re- 
vokes." 



Disputed Misdeal. 

Law 44. — It is a misdeal [i.e., the dealer loses 
his deal] should the dealer deal two cards at once, 
or two cards to the same hand, and then deal a 
third. 

Law 37. — There must be a new deal [i.e., the 
same dealer deals again] if any card excepting the 
last be faced in the pack. 



CLA Y'S DE CISIONS. 



147 



Case. — The dealer deals, or is alleged to have 
dealt, two cards to one hand, and one to the next 
hand, and the adversaries claim a misdeal. The 
dealer denies having dealt two cards together, 
and, as no one is allowed to count the cards dur- 
ing a deal, he continues his deal. He then comes 
to a faced card, and claims a fresh deal. 

What is the law ? 

Decision. — The case was sent to the Author, 
who decided that the deal is only allov/ed to pro- 
ceed in order to settle a question of fact, by see- 
ing, at the end of the hand, whether the cards 
come right. The appearance of the faced card 
puts an end to the deal, and the adversaries are 
thus balked of one mode of estabUshing the 
fact of a misdeal. But they cannot be thereby 
estopped from any other satisfactory mode of 
proof. They are at liberty, after the deal is put 
an end to by the appearance of the faced card, to 
count the hands, and if one hand has a card too 
many they prove the fact alleged, and estabHsh a 
misdeal. 

This ruling was not approved of, as appears 
from the letter which follows : — 

Will you kindly grant a rehearing of the case ? 
I argue that, from there being a faced card in the 
pack, the deal is absolutely and ab initio void, and 
not only voidable. It is void for all purposes, as 
well for establishing a misdeal as for making a 



148 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



valid deal, and was void at the moment the mis- 
deal was made.'* 

On receiving this the Author, as he always did 
when in difficulties, resorted to Clay. Clay 
wrote : — 

The case of misdeal is curious, but I am not 
shaken in my opinion [by the letter forwarded]. 
The cards, to my thinking, must be taken to be in 
every respect right until proved to be wrong. 
The dealer forfeits the deal previous to any such 
proof, and, in a similar case, a player dishonestly 
inclined might face a card in the pack in order to 
avoid forfeiture w^hich he knows himself to have 
incurred. 

Your answer is perfect and lawyer-like." 



Consultation between Partners. 

Law 84. — Where a player and his partner have 
an option of exacting from their adversaries one 
of two penalties, they should agree who is to make 
the election, but must not consult with one an- 
other which of the two penalties it is advisable to 
exact ; if they do so consult they lose their right 
[to demand any penalty]. 

Law 62. — If any player lead out of turn, his ad- 
versaries may either call the card erroneously led, 
or may call a suit. 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



149 



Case, — A leads out of turn. Y (an adversary) 
says to his partner, ^' Shall we call a suit?'* Y's 
partner makes no answer. A says, "You have 
consulted." Y denies that it is a consultation, as 
his partner made no answer. 

Decision. — " Y has ^ consulted ' his partner. An 
answer is not necessary to make a consultation ; 
but if it were, silence is an answer. The knowledge 
that his partner is indifferent might have been of 
value to Y, and might have been precisely the 
kind of knowledge that he had no right to ex- 
tract.*' 



Rubber Paid for when Not Won. 

Case, — A B play against Y Z. A B win a single. 
Only one game is played. Y Z say, " We lose 
four points." Four points are paid, and two of the 
players cut out. Presently it is discovered that 
YZ have only lost one game. AB admit the 
fact, and offer to play out the rubber on the first 
convenient opportunity. 

The case happened in this way. A single was 
left up by mistake from the previous rubber. The 
first game of the following rubber was a very long 
one, and, at its conclusion, A B innocently re- 
ceived the points as though they had won the 
rubber. 

Ought A B's offer to reopen the rubber to be 
accepted ? 



ISO 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



Decision — The Author answered his correspond- 
ent to the following effect : — 

It is too late to reopen the rubber. YZ could 
scarcely avail themselves of A B's offer without 
introducing a give-and-take system, which is sure 
to end unsatisfactorily. However hard the case, 
play the strict game. Extreme inconvenience 
would result if the rule were that rubbers once 
concluded could be reopened. Fancy being re- 
minded that the day before yesterday you marked 
honors when not entitled, and that you won the 
rubber in consequence, and then being requested 
to sit down and play it out ! 

The above decision was by no means generally 
agreed to. Several players of repute thought that 
A B's offer ought to be accepted. 

Under these circumstances the Author sent the 
case to Clay, with the request, " Will you be so 
good as to give your opinion whether Y Z should 
accept A B's offer or not?" 

Clay wrote : — 

^'YZ appear to make,— and can have,' — no 
claim. The question put to me is one of morals, 
not of law. 

" It may be that my moral perceptions are less 
acute than my legislative instincts. At any rate, 
I shall not find fault with Y Z whether they ac- 
cept or refuse the offer made to them. 

In my own case I did decline with thanks the 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



courteous proposal of A B, on the ground that the 
original mistake was mine, and that I was content 
to pay for it." 

Player called on Not to Win the Trick. 

Case. — A leads a small heart ; Y plays a small 
one ; B plays the ten ; Z (fourth hand) says 
Small one/' 

A (suspecting that Z has made a mistake, and 
that he can win the ten), says, Don't win it." 

Is A entitled to this penalty? 

Decision. — Of course Z would have done bet- 
ter to play his card in the usual way, and to say 
nothing about it. 

" Equally, of course, although the definition of 
a ' small one ' is nowhere laid down, it must be 
taken in this case to mean a lower card than the ten. 
Still, the term is so vague, and the observation so 
much in accord with things constantly, if care- 
lessly, said at whist, that, if cases like this are to 
be punished, the game would become a painful 
labor. 

The advantage to be gained by Z's partner is 
too small to call for severity, for if Z, after his ob- 
servation, should take the trick, he cannot be sure 
that Z had not mistaken the suit on the table 
when he made his observation, and this indeed 
would be the most likely explanation of it. 

" Supposing this to have been so, and Z can- 



152 



CLA y'S DECISIONS. 



not help taking the trick, what is to be done 
then? 

Many other inconveniences are also possible 
from an imposition in this case. 

Take the following. A friend of mine, — a 
very charming player, but of a jocose disposition, — 
is constantly in the habit, when his adversary 
plays a king, of saying, before playing his own 
card, — have a small one for that,* and there- 
upon produces the ace. Are you to pounce upon 
him, directly he has fired off his Httle joke, and 
say, * Don't take the trick ' ? 

" On the whole, therefore, I am of opinion that 
A cannot claim his penalty ; though I am some- 
what reluctant to give an opinion, which may ap- 
pear to sanction some laxity." 

When Clay first sent the Author this decision, 
he was rash enough to dissent from it. Indeed, 
the case is admitted by Clay himself to be one of 
doubt, for he wrote elsewhere, I made up my 
mind the other way about this case yesterday, 
but on further thought have altered my opinion." 

More experience in deciding cases has con- 
vinced the Author that Clay's decision, as printed 
above, is right. 



CLAY'S DECISIONS, 



Disputed Revoke. 

Case, — A takes the twelfth trick by trumping, 
and claims game. The adversaries admit the 
claim and throw down their cards. A lowers his 
remaining card, but does not quit it. The adver- 
saries then observe that A could have followed suit 
to the previous trick, and claim a revoke. 

A pleads that as the trick is not turned and 
quitted, and as neither he nor his partner has 
played again, he is in time to correct his error. 

Decision, — The revoke is not complete. It of 
course makes no difference whether the mistake 
occurred in the last two cards or earlier in the 
hand. 

In this case the adversary found out the mis- 
take by seeing the card left in the claimant's 
hand. But I don't see that this makes any differ- 
ence. The adversary should have been sharp 
enough not to find out the mistake until the claim- 
ant had done some act, — which he would have 
done in a few seconds, — completing the revoke. 

If I was in time to find out my own error, and 
correct it, the adversary cannot limit this time by 
finding out my mistake for me. 

I attach no value to the last card being so ex- 
posed that any one could see it. 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



" If the claimant had gone so far as to take 
down his score, and score up the game, I might 
consider the revoke complete. I don't feel sure." 



Player Mixing a Trick with his Hand. 

Case, — A, having gathered a trick, instead of 
placing it on the table before him, put it, in a fit 
of absence, into his hand. 

What is the penalty ? 

Decision, — ^^The decision in this case corhes 
under the class of fancy decisions, to which you 
can hardly apply any known law, and as to which 
it is not necessary to be pedantically strict, seeing 
that no man can repeat his offence, even occasion- 
ally, without coming under social penalties, which 
laws, such as ours, cannot lay down, — still less 
enforce. 

" I should, therefore, decide that, if the offender 
can establish by the assent of his adversaries, or 
by the evidence of bystanders, the four cards 
which he wrongfully took in his hand, he may be 
permitted to do so without penalty, and, for this 
purpose, he may be allowed to show, or name the 
cards, although they may be four of eight cards 
turned and quitted. 

If, however, his adversaries deny his accuracy, 
and he has no evidence to prove it, he must sub- 
mit to the loss of the game. I see no other suf- 



CLAY'S DECISION'S. 



ficient penalty, — and serve him right for making 
such a — — muddle." 



i?^-LEADING AND DEALING OUT OF TURN. 

When the present Laws of Whist were under 
discussion, Clay wTote to the Author as follows 
about the laws of leading and dealing out of turn. 
The Author cannot call to mind precisely the 
original point, having unfortunately mislaid the 
letter :— 

August 9, 1863. 
" Dear Jones, — I agree very nearly with all 
you say. Your principle that a man is bound to 
take reasonable care, — especially of his own prop- 
erty, — is in accordance with old and sound de- 
cisions. There are to my mind, however, a few 
exceptions, — where a trap may be so easily set 
that it requires unusual vigilance not to fall into 
it. 

On this ground it is that I have always de- 
cided, — mind, in these cases there is practically no 
penalty for setting the trap, — that if a man leads 
out of his turn, -the cards of those who follow him 
are not liable to be called. I suppose the case of 
leading a card which may be called and no harm 
done. 

I think the dealing out of turn comes under 
this exception. If a man puts the cards in the 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



wrong place it is loo to i that he may deal out of 
his turn next time without being found out. 

Yours very truly, 

James Clay." 



Is A Lowered Hand Liable to be Called ? 

Law 56. — All exposed cards are liable to be 
called. The following are exposed cards : — L 
Two or more cards played at once. IL Any card 
dropped with its face upwards or in any way ex- 
posed on or above the table. 

Law 58. — If a player, under the impression 
that game is lost or won, throw his cards on the 
table face upwards, such cards are exposed, and 
liable to be called. 

Law 60. — A card detached from the rest of 
the hand so as to be named, is liable to be called. 

The Author was looking on at Whist at the 
Portland when his father, thinking the game could 
not be saved, lowered his cards and was about to 
throw them down, but his partner checked him, 
believing that the game might be saved, as in fact 
it might. It was admitted that every one saw the 
lowered cards, and the adversaries thereupon re- 
quired them to be laid on the table to be called. 
They were laid on the table, and called, and the 
game was lost. 

After it was all over, the Author told his father 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



IS7 



that he need not have submitted to the call, as 
there is no penalty for lowering the hand. This 
remark being-overheard, a lively discussion ensued, 
and, thinking the case of some importance, the 
Author published his opinion in The Field, 

Little did he dream of the hornet's nest he had 
brought about his ears. Mogul,'' an excellent 
plfiyer and admirable judge of the laws, regarded 
his opinion as extraordinary." He thought that, 
if a man intending to let all the players see his 
cards, deliberately lowers them until clearly visible 
to all, they are exposed under the words of Law 
56, pan IL, or in any way exposes them," and 
that the fact of the cards being retained in his 
hand does not alter the fact that the cards are 
exposed above the table. Mogul " held, there- 
fore, that lowered cards are liable to be called, 
unless some other law distinctly says that cards 
held in the hand, though exposed, are not liable. 

Mogul " also put these cases to demonstrate 
the absurdity of the Author's view : — A player 
holding six cards separates five of them and 
lowers them. These are detached cards, and can 
be called if named. But if he commits a greater 
offence, and shows all six cards together, by 
lowering his hand, none of them can be called. 
If, in fact, he lowers them one by one they can be 
called; but not if he lowers them all together. 

Again, if a player says or implies that he has 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



a card in his hand, it is constructively exposed, 
and can be called ; but when he actually shows it 
with the rest of his hand it cannot be called. 

Lincoln's Inn," also an excellent judge of the 
game and of its laws, agreed with Mogul," and 
added that he considered lowered cards to be 
cards exposed above" the table. Also, that the 
words " in any way exposed" must have a mean- 
ing ; and the meaning he contended for is that 
these words apply to cards which are exposed 
otherwise than as specifically stated in the other 
clauses relating to exposure. 

To these arguments the Author replied as 
follows : — 

The words in any way exposed " do not define 
exposure. They merely state, in a roundabout 
way, that exposure is exposure. Melted butter is 
butter in any way melted ; an exposed ankle is 
an ankle in any way exposed ; and so exposed 
cards are cards in any way exposed. 

The word above" is introduced to meet the 
case of a card which leaves the player's hand 
above the table, but is recovered by him before it 
touches the table, a case I have seen more than 
once. It has never been on" the table, but has 
been, technically, exposed above it. 

The law having defined exposed cards as cards 
dropped face upwards on or above the table, says 
by implication that if cards are not dropped, but 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS, 



159 



merely lowered without being abandoned, they 
are not technically exposed ; and hence a lowered 
hand may be raised to its usual position without 
penalty. 

The reason the law does not seek to exact a 
penalty for lowering the hand is to my mind clear. 
To bring an offender within' the pale of the law 
he must do some irregular act which can be clearly 
defined. For instance, he must drop a card, or 
detach a card. These are acts about which there 
can be no dispute as to the fact. But when it 
comes to be a question at what precise angle a 
man may or may not hold his cards (this question 
being involved" in lowering the hand), the law, 
wisely as I think, determines not to interfere. 
Imagine the law to be that a player lowering his 
hand so that his partner can see it, is liable to 
have his cards called. Such a law would give 
rise to endless disputes as to whether the hand was 
so lowered that the partner could see the cards. 

The Author's opinion being much opposed, he 
sought, as usual, when criticised, to strengthen 
it by obtaining Clay's decision. Clay wrote as 
under:— 

' ' You ask my opinion as to whether a player at 
Whist, holding his hand so low that it can be 
seen by the other players, is liable to have his 
cards called under the laws, whether directly or 
by implication, which affect exposed cards. 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



" Whether a hand so lowered as you describe 
should be liable to be called, is a question which I 
have always considered very debatable. I was, 
however, and am still of opinion that these cards 
should not be treated as exposed cards, for the 
following reason : — 

^' When the law inflicts any penalty for an of- 
fence at cards, it is desirable that the act to be 
punished should be clear and beyond doubt. 
Thus, for example, throwing down the cards on 
the table is an act as to which no dispute of fact 
can arise. So also, in the case of a separated card, 
the fact of the separation is required to be proved, 
and can be proved, by the naming of the card 
separated. In the case of a lowered hand, the 
question of degree is introduced, that is to say, 
how much or how little the hand has been low- 
ered, and it is a question which it may be often 
very difficult to settle. Thus, a player may say 
to his opponent, I shall call your cards, for every 
one can see your hand.* To which the reply may 
be, * My partner cannot. Why do you look over 
my hand?* Indeed, in the old days of duelling, 
I recollect a serious quarrel resulting from the 
above occurrence. 

I may be told then that, whenever it is of 
great importance to a player that his partner 
should know his cards, and of no great conse- 
quence that they should be seen by his adversa- 



CLA Y'S DECISIONS. 



i6i 



ries, he may, by lowering his cards, give this in- 
formation, and be subject to no penalty. But 
this is not so. There are many offences at cards, 
and those the most serious, against which no laws 
can be framed, because the offence is very difficult 
of proof, and because, if proved, the only proper 
punishment would be expulsion from the society 
in which it was committed. 

^' A good instance of this class of offence is 
the case of a player who looks over his neighbor's 
hand. What offence can be graver? Yet no 
penalty can be attached to it. By inadvertence, 
any man may, once in a way, direct his eyes to an 
opponent's hand ; but, if he does it frequently, 
you cease to play with him. 

" To this class of offences, in so far as regards 
the imposition of a penalty, I consider the lower- 
ing of cards to belong. 

''James Clay." 



CARD-TABLE TALK 



li 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



■ * I knew one was wont to say in scorn, ' He must needs be 
a wise man, he speaks so much of himself.' " 

— Essays^ Of Discourse^ by Francis Bacon. 



Nothing can be more opposed to fact than 
the popular idea that men who indulge in " Play" 
are a set of selfish brutes, constantly trying to 
get the best of each other. This may be true 
of low sharpers ; but is not even faintly applicable 
to members of respectable play-clubs. 

Thackeray is probably responsible for the false 
notions entertained by some respecting club card- 
rooms. In my humble opinion he took far too 
cynical a view of human nature. He could see 
the bad side but not the good. As regards card- 
players he is preposterously in the wrong. Of 
course, where several hundred men are banded 
together, it will necessarily happen that all are 
not of equal moral worth. But the black sheep 
are as well known in clubs as objectionable 
people are in general society. And, since they 



i66 



CARD^TABLE TALK, 



cannot be removed from the club, unless they do 
something very flagrant, they are tolerated and 
disliked. 

The vast majority of play" men exhibit, as a 
rule, many admirable qualities. The nicest sense 
of honor, the most elegant courtesies of civilized 
life, good fellowship, self-control under trying 
circumstances, these and many other virtues are 
as common in the card-room as gooseberries on a 
bush. 

The green cloth lays bare a man's true charac- 
ter very readily. I am happy to think that I have 
formed many most sincere and lasting friendships 
at the card-table. And it has been my privilege 
to know the fine feehngs and the sterling good 
qualities of my play friends to a degree which 
would have been seldom possible in the case of 
others ; for they were revealed to me in the card- 
room, which is a very Castle of Truth for those 
who choose to frequent it, with their eyes and ears 
open. 

One of these friends was — JAMES CLAY. He 
was an old associate of my father's, and con- 
sequently I knew him before having the privi- 
lege of being admitted a member of the Portland 
Club. 

Till then he had inspired me with a feeling of 
boyish awe, as being the greatest of living Whist- 
players ; and, when I first played with him, must 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



admit I was half afraid of him. But he soon put 
me at my ease. 

It was not long before he found out that I had 
made a study of the laws of games. I need hard- 
ly add that we discussed Whist and its laws fre- 
quently and freely. 

The next step was* that he, my senior, and the 
undisputed Chancellor of the Whist-Table, paid, 
me the high compliment of consulting me in diffi- 
cult cases that were submitted to him for decision. 
As Jeames says in his Diary," Phansy my phe- 
linx!" 

When The Laws of Short Whist," ^ edited by 
Mr. Baldwin, were under consideration. Clay, who 
was Chairman of the Committee that framed the 
Code, several times did me the honor of asking 
my opinion, although I was not a member of the 
Committee. I may, without egotism, assume 
that Clay thought my judgment worth something, 
or he would not have troubled to write to me as 
follows : — 

" Brighton and Sussex Club, 
"Aug. 12, 1863. 

" My dear Jones, — I am beginning to waver 
in my opinion as to the substitution of ^touched' 
for * taken up and looked at ' [in the laws relating 
to dealing]. There is much to be said for the 

* New York : Henry Holt & Co. 



i68 



CARD^TABLE TALK, 



change. Many persons think that the law is so at 
present. It would be a great gain to keep every 
one's hands off the table. Nothing is easier than 
to leave a thing alone. It would prevent inter- 
ruptions to the dealer and unfair tricks with the 
cards. Look at this case. I have seen it more 
than once. The dealer is dealing your hand and 
mine pretty close together. He has dealt one of 
my cards in an uncertain position — equidistant 
from either hand. I immediately draw my cards 
towards me. The position of the card is no lon- 
ger uncertain. It is close to your cards and dis- 
tant from mine. Long odds you take it up, and 
your partner has lost his deal. I am disposed to 
be severe on ^ traps ' which there is no penalty for 
setting, and to avoid falling into which more than 
ordinary care is required. A game is not tolera- 
ble if more than reasonable care is required. 
Why ! I can't look round to bet, or take 5 to 2 
from a bystander, or make civil answer to a ques- 
tion, if my eyes, even during the deal, are to be 
always on the watch. The point is not yet finally 
decided, though the majority is for the change. 
What say you to the foregoing arguments in its 
favor ? 

Yours very truly, 

James Clay.'* 
I have several similar letters, e, g. :~ 



^t^t^ /^g - ^n a 

/V u g ^ ^ ^ ^ " ^ ^ <r'«^ «^ 





CARD^TABLE TALK. 



" Feby. 20, 1867. 

My dear Jones, — The decision is improved 
by beginning as you propose. ' It is a question of 
fact/ It is no part of your duty to say how that 
fact is to be ascertained. Leave out by all means 
* the conscience of the player/ for fear of acci- 
dents. 

*^ Yours very truly, 

James Clay.'* 

Of course we became very intimate, and my 
attachment for Clay was constantly augmented by 
kindnesses I shall never forget. I will mention 
some instances : — 

When I was a mere boy Clay thought proper 
to caution me against plunging. Maybe I had 
been betting; I do not remember. But I do 
recollect saying I never backed myself for any 
sum worth mentioning unless I had been win- 
ning, and the loser invited me to give him a 
chance of getting it back. Clay concluded the 
conversation by saying, Never win too much of 
a man at one sitting.'' 

Again : An Elderly Gentleman, my adversary, 
opened a hand at Whist by leading queen, hold- 
ing only queen and one small one. He lost the 
odd trick owing to the original lead being from a 
weak suit, when I said to my partner, " That was 
a very good example of the disadvantage of open- 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



171 



ing a weak suit. Had Mr. (the E. G.) led 

his strong suit originally, we must have lost the 
trick.** On which the following conversation en- 
sued : — 

The E, G^.— What did you say? That I lost 
the odd trick by my bad play?** 

Ego. — I wasn't speaking to you.** 

The E, G. (indignantly). — " You were speak- 
ing at me, and you said I lost the odd trick by 
leading queen of diamonds. I had so and so** — 
(here he detailed his hand) — and with such cards 
I lead a strengthening card. What do you say to 
that?** 

Ego (sarcastically). — Oh, yes ! I know ! Queen 
and another is a favorite Portland lead.** 

This was a severe thrust at the E. G., who was 
a great man at the Portland. Abuse his dear 
Portland Club, the Temple of Whist, and to think 
that I, a mere boy, could know as well as an ex- 
perienced Portlander ! Absurd ! Impertinent ! 
This was, no doubt, what the E. G. thought, not 
what he said. What he did was, as soon as he 
could, to retire in a dignified manner from the 
table. 

Now there is nothing seriously offensive in my 
observation. The most that can be said is, I was 
not sufficiently respectful, considering the differ- 
ence in our ages, and possibly my tone and man- 
ner might have contributed to irritate the E. G. 



172 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



At all events, he would not speak to me after- 
wards, and would not cut in with me. 

The dissension came to Clay*s ears, and he, at 
once, of his own motion set to work to put mat- 
ters straight. After privately hearing the E. G.*s 
story from him, and my version from me, Clay 
told me I ought to eat humble pie. This I at first 
declined to do, urging that I had been guilty of 
no offence. Clay, however, insisted that, being 
the junior, I ought to give way, and added, apro- 
pos of the humble pie, " I will cut the slice so thin 
for you that you will hardly be able to taste it.'* 
I then allowed Clay to dictate a conciliatory let- 
ter. A day or two afterwards I received the fol- 
lowing from him : — 

" My dear Jones, — I have sent your letter to 

, and with it the best letter I could think of 

from myself. He is considering the matter, — 
which to my mind requires no consideration, — 
and if he does not answer you cordially, I shall 
think him very wrong. But we must remember 
that he is as obstinate as you are. I dare say you 
both call it ' firmness.* 

" Yours very truly, 

James Clay." 



The result was eminently satisfactory to all 
parties. 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



173 



One more reminiscence of Clay*s kindness. He 
spent hours and hours with me, when he could ill 
afford it (his time being fully occupied with par- 
liamentary duties), in assisting me with various 
books. My Ecarte, and especially Piquet are 
much indebted to him. It was mainly through 
his support that my Laws of Piquet, of rather his 
and mine, were adopted by the Portland Club. 

A committee was formed finally to revise the 
Piquet Laws. I pressed him to allow his name to 
be put on the Committee. For some days he 
refused on the ground of want of time. But I 
eventually persuaded him to act, by pointing out 
the great value that would accrue to the laws if 
his name were appended to them. 

It was, of course, important to get the sanction 
of the Turf Club to the Piquet Laws. And here 
Clay's name was all-powerful. Their adoption 
was proposed at a General Meeting of the Turf 
Club. This was carried, and the laws were agreed 
to en bloc, chiefly, as I was afterwards informed 
by Mr. Baldwin, because they were approved by 
Clay. 

Our friendship continued uninterruptedly until, 
at last, poor dear Clay was stricken with paraly- 
sis. Even then he did not lose his cheerfulness, 
and his head remained clear throughout. I saw 
him for the last time about a week before his 
death. We talked Whist, and he gave me his 



174 



CARD^TABLE TALK. 



Opinion on some point of play, and added that, 
if he could only get on his legs again, he would 
be able to play Whist as well as ever. 

When the end came the world lost a Whist 
genius, and I lost what can never be replaced — a 
true friend. 



I am often asked my opinion of Clay's play. 

In the first place, what particularly struck me 
was the extreme brilliancy of his game. Of this, 
the following coup played by him is, to my 
thinking, a beautiful illustration. 

The cards lie thus : — Clay has knave, eight, four 
of clubs (trumps) ; and ace, king, and two small 
diamonds. Diamonds have never been led. There 
are three other trumps in, viz., nine^, six, and three, 
and they are all in the hand to Clay's right. This 
is certain, as the other players have not followed 
suit in trumps. 

Clay has the lead, and requires every trick to 
save the game. 

It is clear that, if his right-hand adversary plays 
properly, that player must eventually make a 
trick in trumps. It is also demonstrable that if 
Clay makes the usual lead of king and ace of 
diamonds, the right-hand adversary must make a 
trick. 

In this position I venture to say that ninety- 



CARD^TABLE TALK. 



nine players — and good players — out of a hun- 
dred would lead king of diamonds, which is the 
book play. Not so Clay. He observes that his 
only chance is to depart fronri rule. He must put 
the lead into his partner s hand, find him with a 
forcing card, and the right-hand adversary must 
make the mistake of trumping it. Clay, there- 
fore, throws rule altogether aside, and leads a 
small diamond, as though he were playing dum- 
my, and saw the cards in his partner's hand. 

Clay's partner wins with knave, and leads the 
best spade, which is trumped. Clay overtrumps, 
and then leads another small diamond, to endeavor 
to put the lead again into his partner's hand. His 
partner wins this trick also, and leads a winning 
card, which the adversary again trumps, is over- 
trumped, has his last trump drawn, and the ace 
and king of diamonds make. 

The hands are subjoined, as it is not easy to 
appreciate the coup from mere description : — 



;i A. — Clay. 


Y. 




B. 


Z. 




Knv. 8, 4. . ^ 


5,4 




10, 9,6....^^ 


9, 6, 3... 




Ace, Kg, 5,2 


6.5 




Qn,Knv.6,3^ 


Qn, 3... 






8, 7,4.... 





10, 9..., 


. 



Take another example. When a youngster I 
was looking over Clay, and late in the hand he 
led queen from queen, knave, nine, and a small 
card. This was the old-fashioned lead ; but a 



176 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



small card is now led from queen, knave, nine, 
etc. I afterwards asked Clay whether he considered 
the old lead, as given by Hoyle, preferable to the 
modern one. He said, No ; I generally lead 
the small one ; but when I had the lead, the cards 
must He lucky for us or we lose the odd trick.** 
By this he meant that, unless the king lay to his 
left or the ten to his right, and one of the finesses 
succeeded, the odd trick could not be won. 

I have won many an odd trick since by acting 
on a similar principle, and always think of Clay 
when it comes off. 



In the second place, though no one knew 
better than Clay when to depart from rule, no one 
was more regular in his observance of rule. He 
combined the carefulness of the old school with 
the dash and brilliancy of the new. 

Whist-players owe more to Clay than to any 
other man, in consequence of his educating his 
generation to adhere to rule. He taught his con- 
temporaries the advantage of playing on system. 
The game has developed since his day, and I am 
bold enough to hold the opinion that there are, 
now living, better players than he ever was. But 
he, by his example, showed them how to become 
better players. There are many men, at the pres- 
ent day, who know more mathematics than New- 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



177 



ton ever did ; but Newton showed them the way. 
Or, magna componere parvis, there are now finer 
billiard-players than old John Roberts ever was, 
but he was the billiard genius whom they have 
all copied, and from whom they drew their inspi- 
ration. Cook would never have made a break of 
936, had not Roberts, by his teaching, paved the 
way for him. 



As to Clay*s manner of playing. I have heard 
him called a slow player. That, however, is hard- 
ly correct. He should rather have been called 
a deliberate player. His system was to play 
every card at the same pace. Hesitation is often 
to the player's disadvantage ; and Clay's object, 
in playing deliberately, was that his pause, when 
doubtful as to the correct play, should not be 
taken for hesitation, but should be attributed to 
his natural habit of machine-like play. 



There was one exception to this habit of play- 
ing deliberately. Clay seldom played a card con- 
trary to rule in order to take in the adversary, 
or, as it is technically called, a false card. To 
quote his own words : — 

I hold in abhorrence the playing false cards. 
I freely admit that to this practice there is great 
and frequent temptation ; ^ ^ ^ for there is great 



178 



CARD- TABLE TALK, 



enjoyment, when your trick succeeds, in having 
taken in your adversary, and having won the ap- 
plause of an ignorant gallery, while, if you have 
played in the commonplace way, even your part- 
ner scarcely thanks you. You have done your 
duty, nothing more — and he had a right to ex- 
pect it of you. ^ I do not, however, go the 
length of saying that false cards should never be 
played, but I prescribe to myself, and advise to 
you, the following limits to the practice.'* 

The limits laid down by Clay were as follows : 
— You are justified in playing false, with a partner 
so bad that regularity in your play affords him no 
information ; or, when your partner is so weak all 
round that you can do no harm by deceiving him ; 
or, in the last three or four tricks of the hand, 
when if your partner holds a particular card you 
attain the result you desire, and, if not, your de- 
ceiving him is of no consequence ; or, when the 
so-called false card is false as against the adversary 
but not as against the partner. 

I have been tempted to make this digression re- 
specting false cards, because the case, as put by 
Clay, is so well worth studying. 

To return : — Clay played, as a rule, deliberately. 
But, when he played a false card, he got his card 
ready before it was his turn to play. 

No doubt he thought that if he appeared to 
hesitate, he might be suspected of a false card, 



CARD--TABLE TALK. 



179 



and therefore prepared to play rather more quickly 
than was his wont. 



Clay was fond of shuffling the cards very thor- 
oughly after every deal. Having suggested to him 
that so much shuffling was likely to produce wild 
hands, which are disadvantageous to good players, 
he said, " I do not agree with you at all. I should 
like to have the cards thrown out of a volcano 
after every deal.** 



Clay, though as a rule agreeable at the table, 
could say a severe thing when addressed by men 
he disliked. Some of his mots on these occasions 
are well worth recording. 

Under the name of " Castlemaine,** Clay is de- 
scribed in Sans Merci, as also his manner to **men 
whom he favored not.'* The incident alluded to 
is, of course, that of his playing Whist with Vin- 
cent Flemyng, when the latter, having backed 
himself heavily because he had a tower of 
strength** for a partner, lost the rubber by not 
leading trumps from five trumps to an honor. 

Flemyngs query to Clay, and Clay*s reply 
about the eleven thousand young Englishmen 
who would not lead trumps from five, and their 
consequent condition of peripatetic impecuniosity, 
are well known, but the passage will nevertheless 
bear quotation. 



i8o 



CARD'TABLE TALK, 



"Vincent held the knave and four more trumps. 
If he had only gone off with that suit the game 
was over. ^ ^ True he had not a very- 

powerful hand ^ * so he led off with his 
own strongest suit, which was trumped by Hard- 
ress the second round * * ^ and the critical 
fifth trick was just barely saved. * ^ * Flem- 
yng said, ^ I ought to have led trumps ; there's no 
doubt of it.* He looked at his partner [Castle- 
maine] as he spoke, but the latter answered never 
a word till Vincent repeated the question point- 
edly. It has been before stated, that Castlemaine's 
manner to men whom he favored not was some- 
what solemn and formal. * It has been com- 
puted,' he said, very slowly, * that eleven thousand 
young Englishmen, once heirs to fair fortunes, are 
wandering about the Continent in a state of utter 
destitution, because they would not lead trumps 
with five and an honor in their hands.* The ultra- 
judicial tone of the reply would have been irresis- 
tibly comic at any other time.** 



The following is a parallel to that story. 

The great authority was looking on at Whist 
when the second player, whom he favored not, 
holding ace, king, knave, instead of playing king, 
as he should have done, finessed the knave. 

The queen made, third hand ; ace and king 
were afterwards trumped. 



CARD^TABLE TALK, 



l8l 



The player then turned to Clay and asked 
whether the finesse of the knave was justifiable. 

To him, the following crushing rejoinder, spoken 
very deliberately at the wall opposite, instead of 
to the querist : — 

At the game of Whist, as played in England 
(pause), you are not called upon to win a trick 
(another pause), unless you please/' 



A similar anecdote of Clay got into the papers 
some years ago, but was incorrectly told, and was 
spoilt in the telling. The correct version is as 
under : — 

A player having asked for trumps, though he 
did not hold a trump (a most outrageous Whist 
atrocity), his partner said, after the hand, — 

^* I presume you did not intend to ask, but 
pulled out a wrong card.'V 

" No,'' was the reply, ''I had a very good hand, 
and wanted trumps out." 

Then, turning to Clay, he inquired if, with a 
very good hand, his play was defensible. 

Clay threw himself back in his chair and stared 
at the cornice in the next room. He had a long 
cigar cocked out of one corner of his mouth, and 
as he spoke, in his " ultra-judicial tone," his voice 
seemed to proceed, in a most comical and inde- 
scribable manner, from behind the cigar. He 
said : — 



l82 



CARD^TABLE TALK. 



I have heard of its being done once before 
(pause) by a dear old friend of mine (pause)/' 

And/' innocently pursued the victim, " was 
your friend a good judge of Whist ?" 

I am bound to addy' resumed Clay, as though 
he had wished to conceal the fact, but that the 
recital of it was wrung from him by this question, 
I am bound to add, that he died shortly after- 
wards (pause, then very distinctly) in — a — lunatic- 
asylum 



Clay was once lamenting to me the number of 
erroneous decisions he had known to be given 
with regard to the Laws of Whist. I said, — 

I don't see what you can do further than re- 
fer the case to the best judge in the room, and 
go by his decision, right or wrong." 

"I think a better plan would be,'' replied Clay, 
to ask the best judge in the room what ought to be 
done, and then to do just the contrary. You will 
generally be right." 



Lord Henry Bentinck was another player, of 
the past generation, of very high repute. 

At the time referred to many of the best players 
of the day belonged to the Portland Club, where 
Lord Henry usually played. He, with perhaps a 
pardonable feeling of superiority than excellence 
gives, was not very willing to admit fine play on 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



183 



the part of his confreres, and especially on the 
part of Clay. 

He was no doubt a fine player, but tenax pro- 
positi to a degree that militated against very per- 
fect Whist. For instance, when he had made up 
his mind not to be forced in trumps, I have seen 
him allow a whole suit to be brought in against 
him rather than take the force. 

Again, he made no distinction between part- 
ners, playing the same game with a good as with 
a bad one, whereas players of the highest class 
vary their game to suit their partners. 

His strong point was his accurate observance 
of the fall of the cards. He was very particular 
about the play of the small cards, and this, no 
doubt, led him to conceive the idea of the call 
for trumps, which was his invention (see Clay's 
''Short Whist," pp. loc, loi). 

The following is an instance of his regard for 
small cards. A newly-elected member of a Whist 
club, whose reputation as a player had preceded 
him, on sitting down to a rubber there for the first 
time, was looked over by Lord Henry and another 

member. Col. F . After a hand or two, the 

new-comer having queen, nine, eight, six of one 
suit, and queen, nine, eight, three of another, led 
originally from the latter. The rule being to lead 
the strongest suit, and the six being a higher card 
than the three, in strictness the former suit should 



i84 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

i 

be opened, though in actual play it is all but im- 
material which suit is chosen. 

Immediately after this, Lord Henry walked 
away from the table, with an air that betokened 
he had seen enough. He was followed by Col. 

F , who asked him what he thought of Mr. 

N 's play. 

" They told me he could play Whist/' softly re- 
plied that sarcastic nobleman. 



When his partner, I took care he should have 
all the information about small cards that could 
be given, as witness this hand, which we played 
together : — 

He leads a trump. The second hand plays the 
six. I hold the five, the four, and the three. To 
the first round I play the five ; to the second, the 
three, thus showing that I hold the four, as no 
Whist-player plays a high card when a lower will 
do as well. This was before the echo of the call 
had been invented. The hand continued, and it 
soon transpired that there were four honors 
against us. My partner having the lead, and 
knowing me still to hold a small trump, and that 
I was able to ruff a suit, forced me, instead of 
leading a third round of trumps, as he would 
otherwise have done. The trick made by the 
force eventually enabled us to save the game. 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



It was this kind of attention to details that 
pleased Lord Henry, and unless such minutiae 
were kept in view, he would not concede any 
merit to his partner's play. 

In consequence, I beheve, of this coup, — if 
coup it can be called, — Lord Henry paid me what 
he evidently meant for a compliment. Bushe, 
better known as Johnny Bushe, a fine player, and 
one of the most charming men that ever entered 
a card-room, told me he asked Lord Henry, whom 
he considered the best Whist-player in the Port- 
land Club. They none of them know anything 
about it," replied he, in his peculiarly gentle and 
biting manner, but I fancy young Jones is less 
ignorant of the game than most of the members.* 

Considering that at the time Clay, Col. Pipon, 
Petrie, Major Adams, Hermann, Storey, and a 
dozen others almost as good, whose names do 
not at the present moment occur to me, were 
then habitual players at the Portland, this criti- 
cism amused Bushe immensely, as was evident 
from the with which he used to relate the 
story. 



In addition to his accurate observation of the 
fall of the cards, Lord Henry had one great vir- 
ture as a Whist-player — a virtue that might, with 
advantage, be cultivated more than it is — he never 
lectured his partner. If you did not discuss the 



l86 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

game with him, he did not discuss it with you. 
If you asked him a question you got an answer, 
generally a cynical one. It was your own fault ; 
you brought it upon yourself. 

Acting on this experience, I generally played a 
silent rubber with him, except to inquire whether 
he had a card of the suit led when he renounced. 
On one occasion, however, I departed from this 
rule. 

My hand was ace and a small spade ; king, ten, 
and two small hearts (trumps) ; queen, and two 
small clubs ; and knave, ten, nine, and a small 
diamond. 

I led knave of diamonds. Queen was put on 
second hand ; king, third hand ; ace, fourth hand. 

The club was then led through me. I called 
for trumps. The second round of clubs my 
partner won with king ; I completed the call. 

Lord Henry did not lead a trump, but returned 
the diamond suit. I, thinking he had no trump, 
played a very cautious game, and lost the odd 
trick. Had my partner led a trump, we should 
have won two or three by cards. After the 
hand : — 

Ego, — I called for trumps, Lord Henry. 

Lord H, — You can't call for trumps after you 
have had the lead and not led a trump. 

Now, of course, it was no use arguing ; so I let 
the matter drop. The proposition, however, is a 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



187 



monstrous one from a Whist point of view. I am 
not strong enough to start with a trump ; but my 
suit being established the first round, and being 
protected everywhere, a trump is obviously the 
lead for us. 

The hand is also a good illustration of Lord 
Henry's style of play. It is a certainty that he 
saw the call, and knew that my suit was estab- 
lished ; but because he had a crotchet that you 
can't call for trumps after you have had the lead 
and have not led a trump, he ignored the call and 
chose to play what he considered the game. 



Those who are not Whist-players may require 
to be informed that calling for trumps, — the 
strongest intimation a player can give his partner 
that he wants a trump led, — is accomplished by 
playing an unnecessarily high card before a low 
one. It indicates very great strength in trumps, 
a minimum of five trumps with one honor, or of 
four trumps with two honors. It is often called 
an invitation to lead trumps ; but it is more than 
this — it is a roy^l invitation — a command. 

Students of Clay will observe that I called for 
trumps with less than the recognized minimum of 
four trumps two honors. But it must be borne 
in mind that general rules only apply to an original 
call, not necessarily to a call late in a hand. An 
original call means four trumps two honors, or five 



i88 



CARD- TABLE TALK. 



trumps one honor as a minimum, with other good 
cards in hand. But the opportunity of leading 
trumps, or of caUing for them once passed, and 
then a call being made, means, the fall of the 
cards has shown that a trump lead would be very 
advantageous. The caller has a very good hand, 
and such strength in trumps that, considering 
what cards are out, partner's strengthening card 
from three trumps, or a small one from four, will 
probably land him in a great score. 

It may be interesting to record Lord Henry's 
opinion of the comparative values of the scores of 
three and four at Short Whist. 

To non-players it may be premised that there 
are many who prefer the score of three to that of 
four, because at three honors can be counted, 
but at four they cannot. On the question being 
discussed before Lord Henry, he epigrammatically 
observed, I have yet to learn that holding three 
honors is any bar to winning the odd trick.** 

This puts the whole case in a nutshell. 

The players of the old school, who learnt their 
Whist at Graham's, held book-whist in great con- 
tempt, and had a way of saying, " Whist cannot 
be learnt from books." 

It is true that to become thoroughly conversant 
with the refinements of Whist, frequent practice 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



189 



with good players is essential. But a would-be 
player who begins practising with a theoretical 
knowledge of the game, must, one would fancy, 
have an advantage over another, of similar capa- 
city, who allows himself to be guided by the light 
of nature alone. I presume no one will contend 
that a sound precept, orally conveyed, is less sound 
when printed in a book. 



There are two books on Whist which all who 
wish to learn the game ought to study. I refer, 
of course, to Short Whist,*' by James Clay, and 
" The Theory of Whist,'' by William Pole. 

Clay's book is charmingly written, and may be 
called the most suggestive work on the subject. 
It is eminently graceful and readable, and calcu- 
lated to make people think about Whist, if they 
choose to read between the lines. 

The chapter, however, on intermediate sequences 
ought to be expunged, as it perpetuates a view 
which Clay afterwards relinquished. 

I argued the point there discussed, with Clay, 
some time after the appearance of his book, and 
he was generous enough to admit that the penul- 
timate lead from five-card suits (which he opposes 
in the chapter referred to) is right. He wound 
up by saying, ''You have convinced me. When I 
play with you at the Portland I shall adopt your 
system." 



190 CARD-TABLE TALK, 

Had Clay lived to re-edit his Short Whist," he 
would certainly have advocated the penultimate | 
lead, especially as the advantages of it were soon , 
recognized by many players, and it is now (1879) j 
generally adopted by club players. : 

Dr. Pole's Theory of Whist is an admirable 
book for beginners. It contains, particularly, the ^ 
best essay extant on the reasons for leading origi- 
nally from the long suit. 



Clay says : Talking over the hand after it has 

been played is not uncommonly called a bad j 

habit, and an annoyance. I am firmly persuaded | 

that it is among the readiest ways of learning ^ 
Whist, and I advise beginners, when they have 

not understood their partner's play, or when they j 

think that the hand might have been differently I 

played with a better result, to ask for information I 
and invite discussion.'' 

n 

At the same time it must be admitted that i 

many players consider it an affront to talk over 1 

a hand, especially the Nestors of the card-table, | 

who seem to regard any inquiry — except as to J 

whether they hold a card of the suit led when they I 

renounce — as an imputation on their skill. j 

When trying to learn Whist, I once asked an 
old gentleman, one of the soundest players of his 

time, if he would explain his object in leading a ' 

certain card. I asked in a deferential manner, de- ' 

siring to obtain information. j 

i 

I 



CARD^TABLE TALK. 



191 



The old gentleman looked fiercely at me over 
his spectacles for a few moments, and then said, 
in an angry tone, as though I had grossly insulted 
him, 

Why, sir, because nobody but a born fool 
would have played anything else !" 

No doubt some men do bore one very much by 
the way they criticise without rhyme or reason at 
the end of every hand. 

One of these bores is the if you had part- 
ner, who constantly greets you with '*If you had 
only done so-and-so we should have made so-and- 
so/* 

My favorite retort to the ^* if you had partner 
is to ask if he has ever heard the story of your 
uncle and your aunt/' 

If he has, he does not want to hear it again, 
and is silent. If he has not, and innocently falls 
into the trap by expressing a desire to hear it, I 
say, in a solemn voice, — 

If your aunt had been a man, she would have 
been your uncle 

On one occasion I set down an if you had 
partner thus I led a small heart from ace, ten 
and two small ones. Queen was put on, second 
hand ; my partner won with king and led trumps. 
All the trumps being out, my partner returned 
the nine of hearts, which I finessed. The nine won 
the trick, and it was now evident that I had the 



192 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



tenace, in two senses, over the knave guarded, to 
my right hand. 

My partner had no more hearts, and so could 
not continue the suit. He, therefore, opened his 
own strong suit. 

I won the first trick in it, and was then in doubt 
whether to return his suit or to lead the ace of 
hearts, making a certain trick, but parting with 
the tenace. It was a question of judgment, de- 
pending on the score and on the exact values of 
the cards already played in other suits. At all 
events, after consideration, I deemed it better, in 
this particular hand, to return my partner s suit: 
It turned out unluckily, and at the end of the 
hand I was saluted with the usual Oh ! partner ! 
if you had only led out your ace of hearts! 
Why didn^t you &c., &c. I replied somewhat 
curtly, I didn't know it was the best !" This 
answer so turned the tables on my partner that 
he did not if you had'* me again for some 
time. 



A companion to the if you had player is the 
it didn't matter'* player. 

My partner trumps my best card, or does not 
trump a doubtful card after I have called for 
trumps, or commits some other whist enormity. 
We win the game notwithstanding, for we have 
prodigious cards. If I suggest that there was no 



CARD- TABLE TALK, 



occasion to perpetrate the enormity in question, 
my partner triumphantly informs me It didn't 
matter." 

This view is altogether fallacious. It did not 
happen to matter in that particular hand ; but my 
confidence is impaired and it will matter in every 
hand I play with that partner for a long time to 
come. 

Again : A point arises whereon my partner does 
not give me information by his play as to the 
cards he holds, when he might have done so. He 
then tells me he knew we had the game, so it 
didn't matter." 

But presently a similar point presents itself, 
only I cannot be sure whether my partner knows 
we have the game or not. I am in the dark. My 
partner's carelessness in the former instance pre- 
vents my drawing the inference that he cannot 
hold such and such cards, otherwise he would 
have informed me. He still continues to think his 
previous play didn't matter." I know it does 
matter. 



The " it didn't matter" players would do well 
to bear in mind a remark of Clay's to a good 
player who was playing his cards anyhow, be- 
cause he had game in his hand and "it didn't 
matter." 

You might as well," said the great Whist Mas- 



194 



CARD'TABLE TALK;. 



ter, " have played in the ordinary way for the sake 
of uniformity y 

There is more Whist-wisdom in that observa- 
tion than many people would suspect. 



To enumerate all the Whist-nuisances one meets 
in the course of a long experience would require 
a volume. The " if you had" player and the *^it 
didn't matter" player are bad enough, but there 
are many much worse. 

There is the gentleman (?) who whenever his 
partner leads a king pulls out a card, and before 
playing it, says, Your king, partner ?" Of course 
this means, My dear sir, I have the ace." 

Granting that the player in question has no sin- 
ister motive, and that he does not intentionally 
desire to draw his partner's attention to the fact 
that he can win the trick, he is a nuisance never^ 
theless. 



Every one has met the player who, whenever 
he was about to lead trumps, draws his card 
and holds it by the corner face downwards on 
the table. He then looks his partner full in 
the face, and says, ''What's trumps, partner?" 
And being replied to, he plays his card with a 
bang. 

This being interpreted of course means " Part- 



CAgD^TABLE TALK. 



195 



ner ! I have led a trump ; return it on the first 
opportunity/' 



Again, there is the noisy blustering fellow who 
leads with a bang a king, not trumps, and before 
it is played to draws another card, and plays again 
with violence, almost before the first trick {liis^ of 
course) is completed. 

Translated into plain English this means "At- 
tention! Here's a king, which nobody can beat. 
Attention! partner! Here's a trump! Get out 
the trumps, and return my suit, of which I hold 
ace queen, or ace, knave, and two or three others." 
Unfortunately there is no rule by which such an 
earthquake of a man can be prevented from hav- 
ing his way, as, though intimations are contrary 
to etiquette, it is extremely difficult — if not im- 
possible— to define what an intimation is. 



Then there is the player who pulls out his 
cards one after the other and puts them back 
again before he plays, and the player whose eyes 
are all round the table, who is humorously said to 
play triple dummy, and who makes wonderful and 
successful finesses. I have known two triple dum- 
my players to cut as partners against an unsus- 
pecting youth and an old soldier.*' The triple- 
dummy partners had had a lengthy inspection of 



196 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



the youth^s hand, when the old soldier rather as- 
tonished them by saying, Partner, you had better 
show me your hand, as both the adversaries have 
seen it/' 



A triple-dummy player once finessed the five 
of trumps against me, to his partner's original 
lead, he being the third player with five and 
king, and I being fourth player with four and 
ace. 

On a former occasion this identical player was 
rather roughly handled in consequence of a simi- 
lar performance. He led : my partner hesitated 
and at last played king second hand. The third 
hand played ace and returned the suit, which my 
partner trumped. 

The adversary to my right then said, " Really, 

W , it is not proper to hesitate like that when 

you have only one of the suit in your hand." 

" I assure you," my partner replied, " I was not 

hesitating ; I was only waiting till had done 

looking at my hand." 

It is a wonder there was not a row, but af- 
fected to be satisfied with W 's explanation 

that he was only in fun. 



once did another very clever thing. He 

became a member of a play-club, where there was 



CARD'TABLE TALK. 



197 



a by-law that if honors are scored in error, the 
adversaries may take them down and add them to 
their own score. 

As a new-comer he was courteously informed 
of the existence of this by-law. 

" Excellent rule indeed/' said , " capital 

rule !'* and sat down to play. 

After a hand or two, his score being three to 
love, he lost two by cards, and observed, smiling 
to his partner, Lucky! We just saved it 

The adversaries, concluding from the remark 
*Vjust saved it'' that they were four, marked four, 
without further consideration. But as soon as 

the score was marked, innocently inquired, 

" Were you four by cards that time?" No, two 
by cards and two by honors.'* " Honors were 
divided," said blandly, and so they were. 

I think you have a very proper rule here, that 
under these circumstances we score two. Partner, 
mark a double." 



Clay told me that when he first played Whist 
at a London club he was horrified to see an old 
gentleman deliberately looking over one of his 
adversaries' hands. Mr. Pacey, the player whose 
hand was overlooked, was, as it happened, an old 
friend of Clay's, and, the rubber being over. Clay 
took an immediate opportunity of advising him 



CARD^TABLE TALK, 



to hold up his hand when playing against P — — , 

adding, 

The last hand he saw every card you held.'* 
" Oh no, he didn't repHed Mr. Pacey, who 

was well aware of P 's peculiarities, he only 

saw a few I put in the corner to puzzle him 



Scene, a Whist Club. Dramatis Personm : Col. 
G. B , Major B . 

A rubber is about to commence. The Colonel 
cuts in, and has the deal against him. The Major 
does not play, but looks on and bets. 

Major. — I back the deal for five. 

CoL — I take it. 

The Colonel wins the first game. The Major, 
pursuing his usual tactics, when the side he backs 
is losing, immediately slopes off to another table. 
The Major's memory about his bets is rather un- 
certain. 

The Colonel loses the next two games in two 
hands ; the cards being thrown down each hand, 
it would seem very unlikely to any one not looking 
on that he could have lost the rubber so quickly. 

CoL (calling out). — Major, that's a fiver. 

Major (from the other end of the room). — I had 
no bet. 

CoL — ^Yes, you had ! You bet me a fiver. 
Major. — Oh no ! I had no bet. 
CoL — But you win a fiver. 



CARD^TABLE TALK. 



Major (brightening up). Oh yes ! I recollect 
now. I backed the deal. 



In most clubs there is a member who, by his 
habitual sadness and way of looking on the dull 
side of everything, earns the sobriquet of " Dismal 
jemmy.** 

In a play-club the Dismal Jemmy constantly 
takes supposed sympathizers by the button-hole, 
and laments his unvarying ill-fortune. 

Meeting a Dismal Jemmy in Piccadilly, one 
afternoon, as he was emerging from his club, after 
the usual greetings, I said to him, 

'^Well! and how have they been treating you 
lately?" 

Dis, y. (with as near an approach to a smile as 
he ever permitted himself). — IVe had the best day 
to-day that IVe had for the last three weeks. I 
have only lost half-a-sovereign ! 

Another specimen of the Dismal Jemmy is the 
one who makes lugubrious efforts at being funny 
when recounting his sad experiences. He will 
solemnly tell you, for example, when he loses a 
rubber, that " the cards with which he can win are 
not yet manufactured;'* he will inform you with 
doleful glee of the precise sum total of the points 
he has lost during the year, as a unique illustra- 
tion of the aberrations of chance; and he will 



200 



CARD^TABLE TALK. 



wind up by remarking that it is fortunate he only 
plays for trifling stakes. 

On inquiring of one of these gentlemen who 
take their pleasure so sadly how Fortune had 
been favoring him lately, he replied with a grim 
smile, "Oh! if I only live long enough, and my 
money holds out, perhaps some day my strong 
suit will be trumps 



It is remarkable that men say the rudest things 
across the card-table,-— things they would scarcely 
dare to say elsewhere, — without any offence being 
taken. 

Sometimes, however, players rush into the op- 
posite extreme, and take offence too readily, as in 
the following scene : — 

D, — I lead you a trump originally, and you will 
not return it (resignedly); of course, we must 
lose ! 

B. (meekly). — That was my view of the game. 

D, (firing off what he means for a joke).— I 
hardly think it amounts to a "view.'* 

D and B were old friends — men be- 
tween whom more license is permissible than 
between mere acquaintances. They and the set 
they played with often chaffed each other good- 
naturedly. 

But on this particular occasion B , instead 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



301 



of joining in the laugh, got angry, and was not on 
speaking terms with D for some months. 



The following severe retort was good-humor- 
edly taken ; but, possibly, the retortee did not see 
to the bottom of it. 

S was a very moderate player who fancied** 

himself. Holding only two trumps, he deliberately 
forced his partner, contrary to all sound Whist 

doctrines. The consequence was that S lost 

the game, which he would easily have saved had 
he not violated a simple elementary principle, 

F. (S *s partner, a great player, in a tone of 

injured remonstrance). — How could yoyx force me, 
with only two trumps ? 

S defended his play, as well as he could, on 

the ground of the score, and of what he considered 
to be the peculiar nature of his hand. 

Well, I cannot think you were justified. 

Here the matter would have dropped, but 
S , a very impetuous creature, lost his tem- 
per. 

^. (firing up). — I don't agree with you, that's 
all. 

Now, if F had said, I don't value your 

opinion,'* or " don*t think it worth having,** S 

would have been furious. But F managed to 

say this in another way. 



262 



CARD' TABLE TALK. 



F. (after a pause, and very slowly, with a philo- 
sophic air). — I really do not know whether I 
should prefer to hear you say that you do 
agree with me, or that you do not agree with 
me. 

This was very neatly put. But it requires some 
looking into to see the sneer of it. It made no 

more impression on the pachydermatous S 

than, as Sydney Smith observed, tickling the 
dome of St. Paul's would make on the Dean 
and Chapter. 



The same player (F ) was once being lec- 
tured by another moderate performer of the 

S school. F listened till his tormentor 

had finished, and then, in a most polite manner, 
without the least appearance of irritation or tone 
of sarcasm, (which, to my mind, made his reply 
peculiarly incisive), said : — 

I hear your argument with respect, — but— 
without conviction." 



As a contrast to the above, the following may 
be related. It is one of the most graceful 
speeches I ever heard at the Whist-table. It was 
made by the first Lord Lytton, a man of most 
polished manners. I was playing Whist with him 
at the Portland, a good many years ago, when it 



CARD^ TABLE TALK. 



203 



was the fashion to wear hanging sleeves. During 
the rubber the king of hearts mysteriously disap- 
peared, and after a time it dropped on the table, 
Out of Lord Lytton's sleeve. 

He said with a smile, I am very glad to think 
that I am playing with gentlemen who know 
me." 



Scene, a Whist Club. — A member who has 
been dining out, " not wisely but too well,** cuts 
in. 

A B (a very good player) leads a heart : 

Diner-out (his partner) has king, knave and an- 
other, and puts on the knave, king being the usual 
play. It turns out very badly. After the hand, 

Diner-out (to his partner). — Think I was right 
t* fin'sse knave 'v hearts ? 

A, B. (with a good-humored chuckle and a 
glance round the table). — I generally put on the 
king before dinner ; after dinner I sometimes play 
the knave ! 



**It requires a very good player to win his 
partner s trick that is, of course, if he can avoid 
it. 

I have often been stung into this remark by the 
eccentricities of my partners. This is the style of 
thing. Ace is led ; I (second hand) play small ; 
the others play small cards. The suit is continued. 



204 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



I (second hand) play queen. My partner hesi- 
tates, looks feebly at the ceiling, like Dickens* 
waiter, rubs his forehead, and asks to look at the 
last trick. He then pulls out one card, puts it 
back and pulls out another. All this time the 
mountain is in labor ; I know from experience 
the sort of mouse about to be brought forth. At 
last, out comes the king on my poor queen with 
a triumphant dash, and the knave follows, my 
partner looking wondrous wise, as though he 
would cry Eureka.** 

I have a good hand, only wanting to know my 
partner with the best of the adversary's suit to lead 
a trump and make a fine score. But my partner 
by taking the lead from me gets his knave 
trumped by his right-hand opponent, who leads 
a suit his partner trumps, and so the game is 
saved. 

Such a partner, oddly enough, never dreams of 
taking the lead if by so doing he can give me the 
tenace at the end of a hand. Thus : a small 
trump is led from a suit of four to the queen ; I, 
second hand, play the seven ; the third hand plays 
king, and wins the trick. A small trump is re- 
turned; my partner puts on ten; the original 
leader, supposing me to hold a tenace or the ace 
single, plays a small card ; I play eight, and re- 
main with ace, nine ; queen and a small one being 
to my right. When three cards remain in each 



CA EDITABLE TALK. 



hand, I, second player, win the trick in a plain 
suit ; my partner, having none of the suit and the 
knave of trumps, leaves the lead with me, though 
he ought to know from the fall of the cards that 
I remain with two trumps over the original 
leader. 

These two cases happened in one rubber. 



It is common enough in domestic circles, when 
people are asked to make up a rubber, to hear 
them decline at first on the plea that they really 
know nothing about the game. After a little 
pressing, they possibly agree to oblige by taking 
a hand if nobody else will, at the same time re- 
peating their protestations of inability, and hop- 
ing they may not be " blown-up.*' 

One generally does expect even the know- 
nothings to be able to deal and to follow suit, un- 
less they are actually coerced into sitting down. 

But I once played Whist at the house of a 
relative of mine with a gentleman who did not 
possess even this elementary knowledge. 

A fourth being very much wanted, Mr. B 

F , after vainly protesting that he " preferred 

looking on,'* that he " scarcely ever touched a 
card,'' and so forth, consented to make us up. 

The cards were cut ; he was told it was his 
deal. Taking up the pack, he said to his part- 
ner : — 



206 



CA RD' TA BL^ TALK. 



' Do you deal out all the cards at this 
game?'* 



I have met various partners almost as simple as 
the one who did not know how to deal. 

Being asked by one of these to give him a good 
general rule for Whist, I told him when he had 
the original lead and five trumps, always to lead 
one ; adding that he would be right forty-nine 
times out of fifty, and that experience alone could 
tell him the exceptional cases. 

We cut in. He was my partner. He had the' 
lead, six trumps, tierce major, led another suit, 
and in consequence we only scored four instead 
of winning the game. 

If you do not like my rule," I remarked, " of 
leading a trump from five, at least you might pay 
me the compliment of following it when you are 
my partner.** 

**You told me,** he replied, "to lead trumps 
from five. I had six trumps, not five. How was 
I to know the rule applied to six? You should 
have said * five or more * !'* 



It is by no means uncommon at the Whist- 
table, if you have every trick in your hand, and 
your partner is puzzling his brain as to which 
card he shall play, to give him a hint, especially 



CARPET ABLE TALK, 



207 



if he IS habitually a slow player, that it is quite 
immaterial which card he pulls out if he will only 
go on. 

This often assumes the form of playful satire ; 
but, in the following instance, it was taken mi 
grand s^rieux. 

My partner was Sir B. P — , a benevolent-look- 
ing old gentleman, who, I soon discovered, scarce- 
ly knew a spade from a diamond. However, 
we had very good cards, and finding myself with 
game in my hand, while my partner was ponder- 
ing what card to play, I remarked, according to 
the time-honored Whist Joe Miller: — 

" Play the one nearest your thumb.*' 

He looked much surprised, then said, quite 
seriously : — Sir, you must not tell me which card 
I am to play !" 



Playing with a stranger at an evening party, I, 
in the middle of a hand, seeing that the game was 
gone unless my partner held good trumps, led 
knave of trumps from knave and another. Sec- 
ond hand put on ace ; my partner played king. 
I laid down my hand, observing, We cannot 
save it.'' My partner then put down his cards, 
amongst which were several trumps. Oh I 
said, I suppose you pulled out the wrong card !" 

No," replied my partner, I have always been 
told to play highest third hand.'* 



CARD^TABLE TALK. 



Another instance of Whist innocence. 

Some thirty years ago (1850), the call for trumps 
was not so generally practised as it is now. At 
the time I speak of I remember an old club play- 
er's sitting down to a rubber with a new-comer for 
a partner. The new-comer, a very indifferent 
performer, played his small cards anyhow, and 
thus unconsciously called for trumps. He had 
but a poor hand, and when it was over his part- 
ner observed, I hardly think with your hand 
that you were justified in asking for trumps.*' 

" I assure you,'' repHed the stranger, " I did not 
ask for a trump. I should consider it very irreg- 
ular to ask for a trump or for any other suit ; but, 
as a matter of fact, I never opened my mouth !" 



G , who loved to make a little ruff, always 

led a single card with that object. On one occa- 
sion, seeing a single card in his hand, he led it as a 
matter of course, without noticing that he had no 
trump. His partner won the trick and returned 
the suit. At the end of the hand his partner 
quietly remarked ; — 

" In future, G , when you lead a singleton, 

I shall understand it means you have no trump." 

G was always very indignant if this coup 

was referred to, and even went so far as to char- 
acterize it as an invention. But I was present 



CARD.TABLE TALK. 



209 



when it occurred, and G — -'s partner was my 
father. 



Some of the Whist Innocents feel very much 
hurt if their knowledge of the game is called in 
question. The following is a case in point : — 

Victim (mildly). — I led a diamond, and you, 
with ace, queen, third hand, put on the ace. 
Surely the queen is the usual card. 

Innoceiit. — No doubt ; but I won the trick with 
the ace. 

Victim, — If you had finessed the queen, it would 
have won the trick just the same. 

Innocent. — How can I tell where the king is? 

Victim (sarcastically). — Well, perhaps I may be 
wrong, but with ace, queen, the third hand gener- 
ally finesses. It is the only chance you have of 
finessing in the suit. 

Innocent (carefully avoiding any reference to 
the word finesse). — I don't deny that, but the 
ace — 

Victim (interrupting). — Oh ! never mind. One 
would think you do not know what finessing 
means. 

Innocent (waxing indignant). — Not know what 
finessing means ! Of course I do. It's playing a 
card you haven't got ! 



210 



CARD' TABLE TALK, 



The Whist Innocent occasionally gets out of 
his difficulties with a clever repartee, which stifles 
discussion. 

On one occasion the Innocent holding ace, king, 
queen, &c., of clubs, ace, king, &c., of hearts, one 
small spade, and three small trumps, led the king 
of clubs, and then proceeded with the single 
spade. 

Of that suit his partner had only ace, queen. 
He finessed the queen, which was taken by the 
king, fourth hand. The suit was returned. The 
Innocent, now second player, trumped it, and his 
partner's ace fell to the trump. After the hand 
there is a conversation : — 

Victim (tremulously, but gently). — Partner, why 
not continue with your strong suit, instead of 
leading a singleton ? I confess I can't understand 
your play. 

Innocent {con spirito), — Well, if you can't under- 
stand it, it is of no use my endeavoring to ex- 
plain it to you. 

Clay's remarks on cutting in with those whose 
play is not known to us are excellent, and are ap- 
plicable to the foregoing stories. He says, If I 
am thrown among players of whom I know noth- 
ing, I feel that I play to a great disadvantage. I 
am like a boy on the first day of going to a new 
school, not knowing whom to like, whom to trust, 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



211 



and whom to distrust, from whom to expect as- 
sistance and honest advice, or from whom to dread 
a hoax/* 



In contrast to the foregoing, let me give an ex- 
ample of hov/ Whist ought to be played. 

I led from five trumps. After two rounds the 
fall of the cards showed that all the remaining 
trumps were with my partner and myself, two in 
his hand and three in mine. One other suit had 
been played and was exhausted from our hands. 

I now had three trumps, including the winning 
trump, and three cards in each of the unplayed 
suits. Not liking to open a suit of three cards, 
and having no indication as to my partner's suit, 
I led a losing trump, that my partner might get 
the lead and open his strong suit. He could have 
won the trick, but played a lower trump. 

I knew from his not winning the trick that he 
also had three cards in each of the unplayed suits, 
as he would have penetrated my design, and if 
he had had a four-card suit would have won the 
trick. At the end of the hand, I said, When 
you did not win my third trump, I saw we could 
do no good, as you must hold three cards in each 
of the unplayed suits." 

"Yes," he replied, I knew that very well when 
you led a losing trump ; for you must hold three 
cards in each of the other suits." 



212 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



Thus we each counted the number of cards the 
other held in two suits, neither of which had been 
played. 

This is Whist. 

My partner was E — — T F , the finest 

Whist-player I have ever met. 



Matthews, whose Whist was very good, consid- 
ering it was written in the beginning of this cen- 
tury, says : Observe silently and attentively the 
different systems of those with whom you com- 
monly play ; few but have their favorite one, the 
knowledge of which will give you a constant ad- 
vantage.** And again : " I must also repeat my 
advice to proficients to vary their play according 
to the set they are engaged with ; and recollect, 
it would be of no advantage to speak French like 
Voltaire, if you lived with people who are igno- 
rant of the language." 

" Mogul," again, in The Field (February 23, 
1867), remarks: *'It would be absurd for players 
to say that certain points of play cannot be al- 
lowed as right, although sound in principle, be- 
cause partners may mistake their meaning. If 
their partners are good players, they will not 
make the mistake ; if they are doubtful players, 
then- all refined points of play should be avoided. 
For it must be borne in mind that, to rightly esti- 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



213 



mate the strength of your partner's and oppo- 
nents* play, and to play accordingly, is one of the 
highest qualities of a Whist-player/* 

Many good players conduct their hands in pre- 
cisely the same way, irrespective of the class of 
partner to whom they may be sitting opposite. 
There are but few who are very skilful in helping 
lame dogs over stiles. 

E T F is one of these few. He 

is the best player, with a bad partner, that I know. 

The lame dogs say, " I like playing with F 

because I understand his game,'* the fact being 

that F . is the only man in the club who can 

understand the lame dog's game, and can play 
down to his level accordingly. 

Homer sometimes nods; and it so happens 

that I can give an example where F did not 

play his partner. 

F (leader) has two cards in hand, viz,, the 

last trump and a losing club. Clubs have never 
been led. Each of the other players has two clubs. 
What ought F to lead ? 

If the third player is very good, the proper lead 
is the losing card, and especially if the second 
hand is a muff, as the muff will probably not put 
on ace second hand, not having counted the 
trumps, and the third hand may make the king. 
Also, if the third hand has ace, queen, he, being a 
good player, will not finesse. 



214 



CARD'TABLE TALK. 



Per contra, if the third hand is a muff, the 
proper lead is the trump. 

F led the losing club. The third hand was 

a muff, and holding ace, queen, finessed the queen. 
The fourth hand made the king. The third hand 

then got a mild lecture for finessing (for F 

never blows up his partner), or rather for not 

counting the trumps. But, in fact, F should 

have lectured himself for not playing his man, as 
I told him afterwards privately. 



Another example, and perhaps a better one, 
occurs to me. Three cards remain in each hand. 
I (leader) have king, ten, and a small trump. The 
other players have nothing but trumps, except 
my partner, who has two trumps and a thirteenth 
card. Ace turned up to my left. We are three, 
the adversaries four, and each side has five tricks. 
If my partner has queen, knave of trumps, we win 
the game whatever I play. 

If the ace, queen of trumps, are against us, we 
must lose the game whatever I play. 

But if my partner has queen and a small trump 
only, the problem is how to make two of the re- 
maining three tricks. 

I led the king of trumps. The second hand, 
with ace, knave, and a small one, passed it, con- 
sidering the queen must be in my hand. 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



215 



I then led the small trump. 

The second hand put on knave, saying, " Now 
I've got you His blank amazement at finding 
his knave taken by my partner's queen, and the 
game saved, was very comical to behold, and 
caused a shout of laughter, in which, however, 
my left-hand adversary did not join. 

I should add that this gentleman was very 
prone to hold up ace, knave, and I felt sure 
he would do so here if he had the knave. But I 
think the play wrong, as had I held king and 
queen of trumps, at this particular point of the 
game my best lead would be queen, and if that 
was passed, the small one. 



Among the numerous letters I receive about 
Whist, instances of unusual distribution of cards 
are not infrequent : as, for example, that A dealt 
himself thirteen trumps ; or had three consecutive 
hands without a trump ; or that B and C had all 
the trumps between them. These letters are 
generally accompanied by a permission to publish 
the facts (which are well authenticated), or by the 
question whether such a case ever happened be- 
fore, and sometimes by a request to calculate the 
odds against such an occurrence. 

The obvious reply is that one named hand or 
combination is no more improbable than another, 



2l6 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



and that curious hands which illustrate no princi- 
ple of play are not worth the trouble of calculating. 

The following singular combination of cards is, 
however, worth recording, as it may be made to 
point a moral. It came under my observation at 
the Portland, Clay and my father being partners. 

The game was four-all. The dealer turned up 
a small heart. Clay led a diamond. The second 
hand had ace, king, queen, knave, ten, nine, and 
two of trumps. With these cards the problem is 
how to lose the odd trick. 

The second hand contrived it in this way. He 
had no diamond, and trumped the card led with 
the deuce of hearts. 

My father (third hand) also had no diamond, 
and only one trump, the three, with which he 
overtrumped. 

In the end the holder of the sixifeme major only 
made his six trumps, his adversaries having six 
winning cards in the unplayed suits, which neither 
of the opponents could trump. They therefore 
lost the odd trick and the game. 

1^ Had the second hand (B ) trumped with 

the nine originally, he must have won the game, 
however the cards lay. For, his partner being 
dealer, held the trump card, and consequently 

B ^ by then leading trumps, must make seven 

tricks, even if all the remaining trumps are in one 
hand against him. 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



217 



No doubt B regarded the chance of the 

third hand's having none of the suit in which he 
himself was void as practically niL Nevertheless, 
he might have made the game absolutely certain. 

The moral is, Never throw a chance away. 

How many hands can be held at Whist ? 

This question is often asked. It is not difficult 
to calculate the answer. Before doing so, how- 
ever, it is necessary to state accurately what is 
meant by the question. Does it mean {a) how 
many different hands can an individual hold ; or 
(I)) how many different hands can the four players 
hold ; and {c) does it count a different hand if the 
same hands are held by the four players in differ- 
ent orders — .eg,^ A holding B's hand and B hold- 
ing A's hand, and so on ; and (^) does it count a 
different hand if the same cards are held and a 
different trump card is turned up ? 

The number of different hands that an individ- 
ual can hold is simply the number of ways thir- 
teen things can be taken out of fifty-two, without 
having two sets of thirteen aHke. The answer to 
this is 635,013,559,600. 

It is evidently a different Whist-hand if A Y B 
and Z one or all interchange an entire hand. It is 
also to my mind a different Whist-hand if a differ- 
ent trump card is turned up. 

If this is admitted, the total possible number 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



of Whist-hands that can be held by all the four 
players is 697,381,590,951,354,306,910,086,720,000. 

This result has been multiplied out several 
times by different people and submitted to vari- 
ous tests, and it may be relied on as accurate. 
The process of calculation was submitted to the 
late Mr. Bidder, the well-known engineer, whose 
power over figures was of European celebrity, 
and he agreed that it is correct ; only he would 
not admit that it is a different hand if a dif- 
ferent card is turned up. Those who take this 
view have only to divide the above number by 
13, when the result will be the number of possible 
hands if the question d is answered in the nega- 
tive. If the question c is also answered in the neg- 
ative, it will be necessary further to divide by 24. 

If any one desires to verify the figures given, he 
has only to perform the following little multipli- 
cation sum : — 

52 . 51 • 50 3-2.1 

X 13 

(13 • 12 . II 3.2.1)* 



Misprints sometimes read very queerly. In a 
reply of mine to a Loo question, the word looed" 
was misprinted " loved " with the following comi- 
cal effect : — 

" If you are loved by Miss it is the same as 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



though you were^ loved by any one else. It 
makes no difference whether you play an unlimit- 
ed game or not/* 



In criticising my Historical Notes on Whist," 
the editor of a London paper blamed me for say- 
ing nothing about Scotch-Whist. 

I wrote to him explaining that Scotch- Whist, 
or Catch-the-Ten, was purposely omitted, as it 
has no more resemblance to Whist than the 
Scotch fiddle has to a violin. 

To my surprise and amusement he inserted my 
letter in his next number. 



The same gentleman also found fault with me 
for quoting from Antony and Cleopatra'* a pas- 
sage beginning My good knave Eros,'* and say- 
ing that knave" was a punning allusion to a 
knave at cards. My critic contended that when 

Antony and Cleopatra" was written, knave was 
not used in this sense. 

It so happened that the statement was taken 
from Douce's Illustrations of Shakespeare," and 
it was, therefore, most likely right. But not be- 
ing a profound philologist, I was at a loss to prove 
my case. 

As luck would have it, however, I chanced just 
afterwards to find in Cotgrave's French and 



220 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



English Dictionary,*' "Valet de Piqve, Knaue of 
Clubs." 

Cotgrave was published in 1611. 
''Antony and Cleopatra** was written about 
1607. 

So I wrote the editor to the effect that, unless 
he could show the modern signification of the 
word knave to have been acquired between the 
years 1607 and 161 1, his strictures only exposed 
his imperfect acquaintance with the history of 
the word. 

He was good enough to insert this also. 



In the advertisement of the "American Hoyle*' 
the following occurs : — " It is not a re-hash of 
English Games, but a live American book, ex- 
pressly prepared for American readers.** 

Finding the live American book had reached its 
tenth edition in 1877, I ordered a copy, but to 
my surprise was informed that it could not be 
imported in the regular way because some of it 
was pirated, or re-hashed ! 

I was, therefore, obliged to commission a friend 
to smuggle a copy from New York. 

The Whist is a compilation from Pole, Clay, 
and myself. I do not complain of American re- 
prints of my books or articles while there is no 
International Copyright Act. The Americans are 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



221 



within their rights in reprinting ; but there is no 
occasion to add gratuitous lies in the advertise- 
ments. American papers please copy. 

In the present case what is taken from me is 
very little, but it is not acknowledged except in 
one place, where I am playfully called ^^The 
writer ' Cavendish * " (p. 17). Several of the smaller 
games are taken from Bohn and other English 
books. An article on Obsolete Card-Games" 
is reprinted from a paper I wrote years ago in 
Once a Week.'* My knowledge of the subject 
was then very imperfect, and, of course, all my 
mistakes are copied. 

An article on Probabilities at Poker'* is ac- 
knowledged as by Dr. Pole and myself. In this 
article, by a slip of the pen, the odds against a 
straight flush with a pack of fifty-two cards are 
given as 650,000 to i. The real odds are 64,973 
to I. The mistake arose thus: Dr. Pole, in order 
to save the trouble of multiplying out, made use 
of logarithms, and accidentally wrote one place of 
figures too many. 

I cannot say that the re-hasher of the American 
Hoyle is welcome to my articles, but he is heartily 
welcome to the mistakes. 



Why is Piquet so little played in England? 

It is generally admitted to be by far the best card- 



222 



C^RD- TABLE TALK. 



game for two persons, taking the -same position 
as Whist does with regard to four-handed games. 

In France, as every one knows, Piquet is uni- 
versally played. 

English indifference to the game may perhaps 
be attributed to its complex nature, a difficulty 
by- no means insuperable, unless we are willing to 
concede that we are either less intelligent or more 
lazy than our vivacious neighbors. 

That the French should possess, as it were, a 
monopoly of so beautiful a game is as regrettable 
to me as it was to Rowland Hill that the Devil 
should have all the best tunes. 



When B6zique first became the rage, about * 
1868, no two sets of rules agreed. The rules 

lived dispersedly in many lands, and every min- 
strel sang them differently." In my first little 
book on the subject I gave the principal varia- 
tions. Shortly after I was much amused on 
receiving a letter, from which the following is an 
extract : — 

*^ I ventured, a few evenings ago, to score aces 
and tens as I won them. My adversary, a lady, 
' flew out ' at me, saying, ' Why, in that way, 
you'll get out before me, and I have several things 
to declare ; surely declarations ought to take pre- 
cedence of stupid old aces and tens.' 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



223 



My adversary was so far correct that if I con* 
tinued to mark those ^ stupid old aces and tens * 
I should probably score 1,000 first, for I was 940, 
and she was quite 200 behind. I calmly referred . 
her to ^ Aces and Tens,' p. 12, in ^Cavendish's 
Pocket Guide to Bezique ' ; but she said, ^ I never 
heard of Bezique being played in that way^ — 
never! And then she read out the paragraph, p. 
10, headed * Counting Aces and Tens,' and raised 
her voice when she came to the words, 'This is 
the usual system,' and then stopped suddenly, 
and put the little book in her pocket. ' There,* 
she said, ' do you hear ? '* This is the usual system.'' 
I should think it was the usual system indeed, 
and I beg you will follow it.' 

" When we had finished playing, at my earnest 
request the rules were restored to me, and then I 
perceived that my fair opponent had omitted to 
read the words that follow * this is the usual sys- 
tem,' viz., * but for a better one see p. 13,' which 
backs up my system. My constitution is not 
robust enough to stand hot arguments before re- 
tiring to rest, so I let the matter drop." 



" The fascinatin but shghtly onsartain game" of 
Poker has within the last few years (1878) become 
a favorite in England. In the United States, 
whence it was imported, it is universally played. 



224 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



Poker may be described as Brag with improve- 
ments. The great object of each player is to 
mystify every one else as to the contents of his 
hand. A good Poker-face, one that will not be- 
tray the nature of a hand by change of counte- 
nance, is a valuable possession. Chaffing and talk- 
ing without regard to facts (called Poker-talk), 
with a view of misleading, is permitted, and is 
considered quite fair. As a round game, poker 
ranks high ; but it is open to one great objection, 
viz., that the game cannot be played properly 
unless large stakes are engaged. 

An admirable illustration of Poker-talk lately 
published in an American journal is worth quot- 
ing:— 

Austen attempted to teach Murphy how to 
play Poker. Murphy learnt rapidly, and the 
stakes, from a small beginning of beans, soon 
developed into bullion. When the pot had risen 
to sixteen dollars, Murphy got inquisitive. 

" Murphy, — S*posin a man has two kings ? 

'^Austen. — Not such a bad hand, but two pairs 
is better. 

" Murphy. — Oh ! Then s'posin a man has two 
more kings, is that double 

[For the information of those who do not play 
Poker, it may be observed that four kings is one 
of the best hands that can be held, but that two 
pairs is only a moderate hand.] 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



225 



Austen. — ^Thunder! I throw up my hand. 
You are a big fool to have told me. You might 
have won all I have ! 

Murphy raked in the pot, laid down his hand, 
and started home. 

Austen picked up the relinquished cards, ran 
them through, and was heard to exclaim, * Two 
sixes ! by all that's blue ! ' ' 



Of course, it is a standing order at Whist that 
lookers-on should not speak. The Etiquette of 
Whist says : — 

Bystanders should make no remark, neither 
should they by word or gesture give any intima- 
tion of the state of the game." 

And the Club Code says : — 

" If a bystander make any remark which calls 
the attention of a player or players to an over- 
sight affecting the score, he is liable to be called 
on, by the players only, to pay the stakes, and all 
bets on that game or rubber." 

Before this law was passed there was no penalty 
for drawing attention to oversights in the score ; 
to do so was only an offence against etiquette. 

Clay told me that what he most prided himself 
on in all his card-room experience was his self- 
control under the following circumstances : — 

He laid the long odds. The players he was 



226 



CARD-^TABLE TALK, 



backing, who had won the first game, forgot to 
mark it. They then won the second game and 
the rubber, but only scored one game, and con- 
tinued to play. 

The player with whom Clay had previously 
betted then asked him to lay the long odds. 

Clay felt sorely tempted to say, ^' Why, I've 
won the long odds already.'' Ninety-nine men 
out of a hundred would undoubtedly have done 
so ; but Clay had presence of mind enough to 
decHne the bet without further remark. This, 
it will be remembered, was before the law had 
been passed which imposes a penalty on a by- 
stander for drawing attention to an oversight in 
scoring. 

I believe Clay eventually lost the long odds, 
and had to pay them, as bets go with the stakes ; 
but cannot charge my memory positively as to 
the result of the rubber. 



Entering a Club card-room one afternoon I 

saw a card under D 's chair. I said Oh ! 

youVe " intending to add dropped a card," 

but, remembering I had no business to speak, 
stopped myself. 

D, — What were you going to say ? 

Ego, — Oh, nothing ! Tve no right to say any- 
thing. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



227 



D. (rather a nervous old gentleman, plaintively). 
—Oh ! do tell me if I've done anything wrong ! I 
wouldn't do anything wrong for the world! — (and 
so on for several minutes). At last, 

Ego, — I'll say what I was going to say if the 
adversaries will give me permission. 

Adversaries, — Oh! certainly, certainly, we don't 
want to take any advantage of a mistake (etc., 
etc.) 

Ego (to D ). — Well, then, you've dropped a 

card. 

D, (looking under his chair, picks up the card 
and puts it in his hand). — Thank you^ I'm so fituch 
obhged to you. 

Game proceeds. 

D, — Well, that's game, four by honors and sev- 
eral by cards (throws down his hand). 

Adversary, — Hallo! You've got a card too 

many. (The dropped card, which D had put 

in his hand, was then discovered to belong to the 
other pack.) Fresh deal. 

D, — Jones told me it was mine. 

Adversary, — We've nothing to do with what 
Jones told you. You should have counted your 
cards. 

D, — Jones ! Look here ! What is the rule ? 

But I had left. Foreseeing what was about to 
happen, I had been suddenly seized with a burn- 
ing desire to ascertain whether there was any one 



228 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



in the billiard-room. How it ended I don*t know, 
except that a bystander told me afterwards I 
was well abused all round. 

Moral : — Never, as an outsider, make any re- 
mark on the game, unless appealed to. 

Club Committees occasionally act in a very 
despotic manner, forgetting that they are only 
appointed to manage the affairs of the members. 
Any serious misconduct ought not to be dealt 
with by a Committee, but by a special general 
meeting. 

At a London club, where no game is allowed 
on Sundays, it used to be the practice to play 
after twelve on Saturday night. On one occa- 
sion, however, the fact that play had continued 
after twelve on Saturday night was brought offi- 
cially to the notice of the Committee (who before 
that were perfectly cognizant of the practice), and 
the attention of the members engaged was called 
to the rule about Sunday play. The Committee 
wrote to the offenders (?) informing them that un- 
der Rule a repetition of their crime would 

entail their summary expulsion. 

Certain fines are also exacted for late play, and 
these fines were duly paid, and this fact was with- 
in the knowledge of the Committee. 

I don't offer any opinion as to whether or not 
it is wicked to finish a rubber of Whist on Satur- 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 220 

day night if the clock strike twelve in the middle 
of it ; but it is rather amusing to think that the 
club in question pocketed the fines, thus render- 
ing themselves partakers of the crime, and that at 
the same time the Committee bullied the mem- 
bers who paid the fines. This proceeding, to 
quote Artemus Ward, betrays genius of a lorfty 
character." 



Turning over the leaves of a blotting-book at a 
play-club I came across the following fragment of 
a letter, which I read almost before I was aware 
of it, or, as Mrs. Cluppins might have said, the 
words forced themselves upon my eye": — 

Sir, — When I had the pleasure of meeting 
you yesterday, as you did not refer to the racing 
and card account between us, I fancy it must 
have slipped your memory that you owe me one 
hundred and eighty-seven pounds " 

Here the letter broke off. 

What a precious bad memory that fellow must 
have had ! 



I was once paid ten pounds twice over, owing 
to some mistake in card accounts. On trying to 
set it right the player who had overpaid admitted 
entire forgetfulness of the transaction, but was 
willing to take the ten pounds back if I was sure 
about it. I demurred to this, on the ground that 



230 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



the mistake might possibly have been mine, but 
added that, as I did not feel justified in keeping 
the money, I would give it to any charity he liked 
to name. 

He said he did not care, so I proposed to pre- 
sent ten guineas to the Asylum for Idiots. 

My friend was a little nettled at this, though 
really no reflection on his mental powers was in- 
tended. This channel was merely chosen because 
I thought the asylum a deserving institution. 

C B C , an old friend of mine, a Fel- 
low of his college, and also a capital Whist- 
player, having obtained an appointment, resigned 
his Fellowship, and left Cambridge to fulfil his 
new duties. 

C 's father, himself a scholar, but not a Uni- 
versity man, had a very easily-to-be-conceived 
notion that the Dons valued scarcely any branch 
of knowledge outside mathematics and classics. 

This gentleman happened to visit Cambridge 
shortly after his son's departure, and was enter- 
tained at the high table. He was naturally de- 
lighted at the compliments that were paid to his 
son's abilities, and at the regrets the Fellows ex- 
pressed for his loss. 

Mr. C said the Master of a neighbor- 
ing Hall, in a dignified manner, ^^your son's leav- 
ing us is deemed quite a loss to the University." 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



231 



Mr. C pricked up his ears, expecting 

another tribute to his son's intellectual superi- 
ority. 

The Master continued, The fact is we have 
not had a good rubber since he left 

C B C being a high wrangler, one 

need not sympathize with his father at finding his 
son had not confined his studies solely to the 
curriculum imposed by Alma Mater, 



The father of another friend of mine, under 
somewhat similar circumstances, had more reason 
to grieve. 

Having at his son's request taken him away 
from his profession, and placed him at the Uni- 
versity, at some effort to himself, trusting to find 
his reward in his son's scholastic success, I was 
able to congratulate him one day on the young 
fellow's having obtained a prize, the information 
having been imparted to me by the father himself. 
But he roughly stopped my* complimentary ex- 
pressions as follows : — 

"Yes, he has won a prize !" Then, with a curl 
of the lip and a snort of chagrin, " The Silver 
Billiard Cue." 



The Laws of Whist, though very good in the 
principles on which they are based, are, it must be 



232 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



confessed, loosely worded. It is to be hoped that 
some day the drafting may be reconsidered. If 
this were done with the consent of the clubs that 
have adopted the laws (which one would think 
could be readily obtained), a boon would be con- 
ferred on Whist-players. 

I could give many instances of bad drafting, 
but, as this is not the place for criticism on the 
Laws of Whist, will quote only two forwarded by 

a humorous friend, S P , with a hope that 

the wording of our Whist code might be re- 
vised : — 

" I have been considerably irritated of late by a 
Mr. Muff, a practical joker who, if he had only 
read the instructions of ' Cavendish ' as carefully 
as he reads the rules, might some day play one 
card out of three correctly. 

" 'Twas only the other day Mr. Muff was deal- 
ing, when his partner exclaimed, * You have m^is- 
dealt ! * He replied, ' I am certain I have not,' 
and proceeded deliberately to count the cards re- 
maining in his hand. I exclaimed, * Now you 
have made a misdeal of it ! * ' No, I have not,' 
he replied, ^ fetch the rules.* And sure enough, 
he, not being under the impression that he had 
made a mistake (Law 44, par. v.) when he counted 
the cards, I could not claim a misdeal, but could 
only look severe and feel that I had been sold. 

" I trusted that the dignified silence with which 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



233 



I accepted his reading of the rules would have 
made some impression on him. Vain hope ! A 
few days afterwards he was again my opponent 
(the only piece of luck I had had that day), when 
his partner called attention to the trick by draw- 
ing his card towards him before Mr. Muff had 
played. I required the latter to play the highest 
of the suit. He played a small one, and pres- 
ently one higher. ^ Well,* said I, ' I shall claim a 
revoke presently, if required.' *You may claim 
as much as you like,' he said, ^ but you cannot en- 
force it.' ^ We shall see,' I rejoined. We won the 
game on the hand, and, as they were at love, there 
was no necessity to claim the penalty. But think- 
ing that, for once, I knew the rules better than 
he, I called for the code and placed Rule 61 be- 
fore him, triumphantly. * Can't you read ? ' he 
said. ^ I am not " a player who has rendered him- 
self liable ;" it was my partner who rendered me 
liable to have my highest card called. You have 
no penalty for my disobedience, save only that of 
not playing with me again. But please don't do 
that, for I have got one or two more sells for you, 
and in time you'll know the rules.' 

" I was so vexed, I almost revoked next hand ; 
and have ever since prayed that some Solon 
or Lycurgus would arise and revise our Whist- 
laws." 



234 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



Law 33 always amuses me hugely. It informs 
us that each player deals in his turn/' This 
looks like a bit of dry humor, especially as the 
law continues, " The right of deahng goes to the 
left," reminding one of the rule of the road : — 

* ' If you go to the left you are sure to go right, 
If you go to the right you go wrong." 

Law 84, limiting the power of consultation be- 
tween partners, gives rise to numerous arguments 
and queries. - After vainly endeavoring to make 

it clear to two friends, B and S , that they 

are at liberty to consult as to which of them shall 
exact the penalty, but that they must not con- 
sult as to which penalty it is advisable to exact, 

B said, I suppose Fm very dense, but for 

the life of me, I cannot understand it now.*' No 
more can I," echoed S — — , the Laws of Whist 
seem to me to have been invented for the ex- 
press purpose of puzzHng people." 

Some of the laws certainly might be made more 

clear ; and I quite agree with S P that 

revision at the hands of a modern Solon or Ly- 
curgus is desirable. 



Who has not experienced the truth of the 
proverb, ^' Ridictclmn acrif No doubt a Httle 
playful banter will often carry a point, more surely, 
and apparently more convincingly, than the most 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



235 



carefully considered argument. A small instance 
of this occurs to me. 

While the laws of a certain game were under 
discussion, I proposed a modification in one of 
the rules. 

My suggestion was at first vehemently opposed. 
After exhausting time and temper, on what ap- 
peared to me to be simply a factious opposition, 
I gave up further argument, and closed my final 
reply in these terms : — 

^' This appears to me to be common-sense, and 
therefore'' — mark the therefore — "I do not ex- 
pect it will be adopted, common-sense being, as 
Abernethy said, a very uncommon thing." 

The alteration I contended for was eventually 
carried by a large majority. 



Certainties, like infinities, may be of different 
orders. For instance, there is the absolute cer- 
tainity and the moral certainty. That parallel 
lines can never meet is an absolute certainty ; lay- 
ing against dead'uns" is only a moral certainty. 
For dead'uns sometimes turn out to be real red- 
hot live'uns : witness Hermit for the Derby. 

When I first joined the Whist Club, my 

rule was not to bet. But occasionally I was so 
pressed by a very indifferent player to give" him 
a bet, that I yielded. As far as play went it 
looked like a moral." But I lost by it. 



236 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



I also laid the long odds sometimes. This is 
another moral*' in the long-run; but for some 
months I lost by the odds. 

I won a majority of rubbers, but was out of 
pocket by these irregular bets. 

Meeting a friend at another club, he in- 
quired, How are you getting on at your new 
club 

I puzzled him rather by replying, I should 
have done very well if I had not been betting on 
certainties.*' 

Another illustration of the uncertainty of cer- 
tainties occurs to me in the story of the Whist- 
player who had a way of saying, by way of joke, 
that ^^he believed in nothing but the Ace of 
Trumps.*' Even this rag of a belief was snatched 
from him in the following cruel manner : — 

Playing Whist at the M Club, the sceptic 

won a treble and four, when his opponents called 
for new cards. The next hand the sceptic won 
six tricks, and still holding ace of trumps, placed 
it on the table, observing, There's the game and 
rubber.'* 

His right-hand adversary, however, produced 
another ace of trumps (the pack, as occasionally 
happens with new cards, containing a dupHcate), 
and consequently there had to be a fresh deal ; 
and the sceptic eventually lost the rubber. 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



Travellers tell us that savages cannot count be- 
yond ten. Long experience at Whist has con- 
vinced me that it is far more difficult than is com- 
monly supposed for civilized people to count 
thirteen ; for how often it happens that even 
good players excuse a mistake by saying they 
thought there was another trump in, or they had 
miscounted the spades. 



After I had played Whist a few times with H. 

H. the M , he said to me, I did 

not know until yesterday that I was a pupil of 
yours. I used to be a very bad player till I got 
your book." 

" I feel greatly flattered, M I replied, " by 

your notice. I hope it has turned out a profitable 
investment." 

Oh no! " he said, " it has not. Since I stud- 
ied the game I have lost thousands." 

The M was considerably above an average 

player and did not play high ; so his thousands" 
must have been a humorous exaggeration. 



A lady friend of mine, residing in Buckingham- 
shire, was playing Whist at Latimer, and Lord 
Chesham (whose family name is Cavendish) was 
her partner. He played in some way quite con- 
trary to rule, and Mrs. H , who was a book- 



238 CARD-TABLE TALK. 

player, said to him in the course of conversation, 
''You should read the book ' Cavendish/ 

Lord Chesham was very much astonished at 
being addressed, as he supposed, thus famiHarly 
by a lady visitor ; and it had to be explained to 

him that Mrs. H was recommending a book 

on Whist for his perusal. 



Going into the card-room of a country club one 
day, I was invited to cut in, and it so happened 

that my partner, a Major S , was the only 

player in the room to whom I was not personally 
known. The Major dealt, and just before he 
turned up he said to me, 

" Do you play the call for trumps 

The shout of laughter with which the other 
players greeted this question rather disconcerted 
my gallant partner. 

It should be added, for the benefit of those who 
are not club-players, that this question was by no 
means unusual some years ago. 



Scene, library in a private house. After din- 
ner. Whist going on. Dramatis personce : Col. 

I (the host, a man of classical attainments) ; 

F N (a facetious man) ; X (an unedu- 
cated man, whom Col. I has picked up at the 

last minute to make a fourth) ; and H J . 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



F, N. (having won the odd trick). — That^s the 
dolus or trick. 

CoL L — I never knew dolus meant the odd 
trick'' (opens book-case and takes down Latin 
dictionary). 

Tutti, — Now, Colonel, table up. (The Colonel 

puts down the dictionary. H- J , who has 

cut out, takes it up. At the end of the hand), 

y, — -Here it is. Dolus, an artful contri- 
vance, cunning device, trick. Doctus dolus, a 
clever trick." 

Fresh hand begins. X — — wins the odd trick 
by a desperate finesse. 

X, — There you are, Colonel ! There's a doctor s 
bolus for you ! 



Scene, a Whist Club. Dramatis personce : R 

D D (a most accomplished player) and 

H J partners ; Capt. P (an adversary 

of moderate capacity). 

P 's score is three. D and J have 

made five tricks. D opens a fresh suit, spades, 

of which J holds ace, queen, and two small 

ones. J does not finesse the queen, but plays 

ace to save the game. The king of spades hap- 
pens to be to J 's right. Eventually D 

and J lose the odd trick. 

y. (jokingly and ironically to his partner). — I 
lost the odd trick there, by bad play. 



240 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



i?.— How? 

y. — Not finessing the queen of spades. 

P. — Capital ! I like to see these Professors make 
mistakes. What made you do it ? 

y. (with asperity). — It so happened that that 
trick saved the game ! (Collapse of P .) 

D, (coming to P *s rescue). — It did not save 

the game unless I had an honor. 

J, (with more asperity). — It so happened that 
you turned up the knave ! (Collapse of D .) 



I have stated that all the anecdotes in table- 
talk are true. I do not vouch for the one below, 
but give it as I heard it. 

A rubber was going on at the Portland. Five 

tricks had been played, of which H had won 

two, consequently eight cards remained in his 
hand. He put his hand of cards on the table to 
take a pinch of snuff, and by mistake, took up 
the two tricks before him instead of his own cards. 
They happened to be two tricks in trumps con- 
taining all the honors. He trumped the next 
trick, played out the trumps, and necessarily won 
the game, and no one observed what had happen* 
ed until it was pointed out by a bystander. 

This sounds very like a canard ; but an old 
member of the club assured me that it actually 
occurred. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



241 



Scarcely a less extraordinary thing happened 
when Lory Lytton, Clay, my father, and another 
member, whose name I forget, were playing at the 
Portland. They were using two white packs, and 
a trick from one pack got mixed with the other, 
so that one pack contained forty-eight cards, the 
other fifty-six. The imperfect pack was dealt with, 
and after two or three tricks were played the hand 
was abandoned, and a treble scored. The redun- 
dant pack was then dealt with, but a misdeal was 
made. Had it not been so the duplicate cards 
must have been discovered. 

The third deal was a repetition of the first, and 
a bumper was won with forty-eight cards. 

The circumstance would never have been 
brought to light at all had not my father thought 
that some one was bottling" the ace of dia- 
monds ; and when the cards were thrown down he 
examined them to ascertain who had it. He then 
discovered that there was no ace of diamonds in 
the pack. He at once privately consulted a by- 
stander as to the proper course to pursue — 
whether he ought to take the points or not. The 
bystander said that the adversaries having aban- 
doned the rubber, it was too late for them to plead 
that it had not been properly won. (See Law 59.) 
After the settlement my father told the players 
what had happened. The point as to the right 
of the winners to receive the points was 'referred, 



242 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



and was properly decided in accordance with the 
bystander's view already given. 

Perhaps a still more remarkable fact is that, 
after the rubber, all the players said they thought 
they had counted their hands before playing. 



When my book on Whist was first published, 
the authorship was kept a profound secret. I 
sent a copy, with the author's compHments," to 
my father ; and great was the amusement of my 
brother (who knew all about it) and myself at the 
governors" guesses as to where it could have 
come from. 

One evening, when about to play a family 
rubber for love, we proposed to the governor" 
to play one of the hands in the book, *^to see if 
the fellow knew anything about it." He con- 
sented. We sorted one of the hands (Hand No. 
XXXVI., p. 246, 1 2th Edition), giving my father 
Y's hand, others of our circle taking the other 
hands, and my brother sitting out book in hand, 
to see whether we followed the " book" play. 

The governor" played the hand all right till 
he came to the coup at trick 9, when he went on 
with his estabhshed diamonds. 

Frater (interrupting). — The book says that is 
wrong. 

Well, what does the book say ? 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



243 



Frater, — The book says you should lead a 
trump. 

Pater, — But there are no more trumps in ! 
(Hesitates, and seeing that he has two trumps, 
and that leading one of them will not do any 
harm, leads it, and then turns round triumphantly 
and says), — Now what does the book say? 

Frater (very quietly). — The book says you 
should lead another trump. 

This was too much. Lead a thirteenth trump 
v/hen you can give your partner a discard ! Oh ! 
no! So the ''governor" would not and did not 
lead the trumip, and he scored four. 

We then persuaded him to play the hand again, 
and to lead the thirteenth trump. To his sur- 
prise he scored five. 

He then admitted it was "very good," but 
could not think who in the world had sent him 
that book. 



Of course I seldom played at the same table 
with my father at the Portland. But it occcasion- 
ally happened that there was only one table, and 
that we must either play together or lose our 
amusement. 

On one of these afternoons I was Z in Hand 
No. XXXVIII. (i2th Edition, p. 253), and my 
father was B. By reference to the book it will 
be seen that I played the grand coup against him. 



244 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



My partner was a very good player. When 
the hand was over the following conversation 
took place : — 

K, (my partner to me). — You trumped my best 
diamond. 

Ego, — I know I did. We won the trick by 

it. 

K. — I don't see how you could win a trick by 
trumping a winning card ! 

I should mention that my father had seen the 
position as well as I had, that he knew I had 
three trumps (as was clear after my discard at 
Trick 8), and that he was waiting to be led to in 
trumps. I noticed, too, from his manner, that he 
hardly knew whether to be pleased at my good 
play or annoyed at being out-manoeuvred. 

Ego (to K.). — Ask the ''governor'* if we didn't. 

Pater (gruffly). — Of course you did, of course 
you did. 

I afterwards told Clay of this coup, and he was 
good enough to say that he admired the discard 
of the king of spades at Trick 8. 

He also chaffed the ''governor" a bit about my 
" unfilial conduct." ' 



According to my experience the opportunity 
for playing the grand coup occurs about once in 
a thousand rubbers; to an individual player about 
once in four thousand rubbers. 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



245 



I can only remember to this date (January, 
1879) to have played it eight times. 



The secret of my nom de plume ^ of course, oozed 
out by degrees. The process of oozing occasion- 
ally led to odd positions. 

One day my partner, Col. the Hon. P F , 

asked me point-blank, across the table, if I knew 
who the author was. Bushe, my adversary, who 
was in the secret, pointed out the author to my 
partner, much to his astonishment. 

At dinner, at a friend's house, Mr. Q , a 

stranger to me, whom I afterwards discovered to 
be a more than average player, remarked to our 

host, P , also a Whist-player, that he had had 

a curious hand at Whist from which he thought 
it doubtful which card should be led originally. 
The hand was as follows : — Ace, king, queen of 
spades ; nine, eight, six, four, three of hearts ; 
eight of clubs ; and ace, king, queen, three of 

diamonds (trumps). Score, love-all. P , being 

in the secret, turned to me and said, "Jones, what 
is your opinion?" 

I replied, I thought there was no sufficient rea- 
son for departing from the rule of leading the 
longest suit, and that I should start with a small 
heart. 

— I don't think the lead can be decided off- 



246 



CARD'TABLE TALK. 



hand in that way. However, I have written to 
" Cavendish'* about it. 

P. (humorously). — I have already submitted it 
to Cavendish," and he said he should lead a 
small heart. 

Q. (surprised). — How on earth could you have 
done that ! The case only occurred last night, and 
this is the first time I have mentioned it to any 
one. 

P. (always ready for a joke). — What I have told 
you is the fact. 

Q. (puzzled and a little up in his stirrups). — I 
suppose I may believe the evidence of my own 
senses. 

P and I then looked at each other and 

laughed so heartily that Q said — 

"There can be only one explanation of the 
matter. Mr. Jones, you must be — 

" Quite so/' said P- . 



From a Whist point of view the hand just 
given is interesting, good judges differing as to 
which of three suits should be led originally. 

The cards it will be remembered were as fol- 
lows : — Ace, king, queen of spades ; nine, eight, 
six, four, three of hearts ; eight of clubs ; and ace, 
king, queen, three of diamonds (trumps). 

The hand was shown to a large number of 
players of repute. Some would lead one, some 



CARD' TABLE TALK. 



247 



two, some three rounds of trumps ; and after lead- 
ing trumps some would proceed with the spade 
suit, some with the heart suit. Others would not 
touch a trump at all^ but would lead in the first 
instance either a spade or a heart. Others would 
lead a round of trumps, then a round of spades, 
then a heart. The majority were in favor of an 
original spade lead. 

I did not ask any players who are in the habit 
of opening the hand with a single card, or I could 
have got plenty of opinions in favor of a club 
lead. 

Petrie, a fine player of the old school, was in 
favor of a spade lead. He wrote me as follows : — 

" If my partner can make a couple of tricks, I 
expect to win the game, as I can reasonably ex- 
pect to make seven tricks myself. Establishing 
the hearts would, therefore, form no part of my 
scheme. I should lead spades, and if they yielded 
three rounds should go on with the hearts. I am 
opposed to a trump lead, preferring to lie quiet, 
when I am pretty sure to realize four tricks in the 
suit." 

Q , the player to whom the hand was ac- 
tually dealt, led a spade. His partner dropped 

the eight. Q then played a second round, to 

which his partner threw the knave. Q then 

led a third round, to see what his partner dis- 
carded. It turned out that the second hand had 



248 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



six spades originally, so the fourth hand made a 
small trump, and led a club. The command of 
the club suit lay with the present leader and his 

partner. Q was forced, and only made the 

odd trick, though his partner had a fine heart suit 
and four trumps. 

My objection to the spade lead is that its policy 
lies chiefly in the hope that spades may go round 
three times. If three rounds of spades are decided 
on, why not first extract three rounds of trumps ? 
Also, supposing the spades do go round three 
times, I am then driven to the heart suit, after 
having parted with the command of spades. And 
I fail to perceive that this postponement of the 
lead from the long suit in any way improves my 
partner s chance of making the two tricks I re- 
quire from him. 

Clay's opinion, which is most interesting, was 
as under : — 

" I am convinced that the right way to lead 
from this hand is either to begin with a heart, or 
to lead first one round of trumps. You play to 
win the game, which you can hardly do unless 
your partner has strength in hearts, or trumps the 
suit. I incline to the trump lead. I think one 
is bound to give one's partner some intimation of 
considerable strength. It is a risk. No doubt, 
the trump lead will take from him a trump, with 
which he might trump a heart ; but the risk ought 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



249 



to be run, in order to show your partner that you 
play to win the game. If you take a round of 
trumps, is it to be with the king or the queen ? I 
think the queen ; for if you play the king and 
stop, your partner looks for ace, knave, in your 
hand, and feels himself obliged to play a trump 
when he comes in. On the other hand, your 
queen may puzzle him ; yet he can hardly think 
that ace and king are held up against you. When 
you change your suit, if he is intelligent, he 
guesses how things are. ^ My partner,' he says, 
* is very strong in trumps, most probably had the 
tierce major; but his suit is a long weak one, and 
he will not draw the trumps until he sees whether 
I can help him.' If he reasons thus, as he ought 
to do, he plays accordingly, — the trump if he has 
a good heart suit, — something else if he is weak in 
hearts. I have asked George Payne his opinion. 
I consider that he has the greatest genius for the 
game of any man I know. He would begin with 
the heart. He is an imperfect player from his 
long practice with muffs, and his habit of betting 
on races, &c., during the play of the hand. But 
he is a real genius, and there is no one like him to 
play with muffs, and guess, as it were by inspira- 
tion, all their absurdities." 

My objection to Clay's trump lead, with great 
deference, is that I could not pick out any good 
player who would not return the trump lead the 
moment he got in. 



250 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



I lead the heart. My object is to establish the 
heart, if my partner has strength in the suit, to 
force him if he has not. 

The only argument I can see against the heart 
lead is, that if one adversary is strong in hearts, 
and the other weak in hearts and short of spades, 
a double ruff may be established. This I look on 
as an off-chance. 

I do not begin with a trump lest my partner 
should be numerically weak in hearts and trumps 
I do not begin with the spade, because I want 
the spades as cards of re-entry. 

Suppose the same hand with the knave instead 
of the queen of spades. All doubt vanishes, the 
heart is then clearly, to my mind, the right lead. 
I cannot see that the substitution of the knave 
for the queen of spades so affects the hand as to 
alter its scheme. 



Apropos of the hand just discussed, I asked 
Clay's permission to publish his opinion in The 
Field, with his name attached. 

He replied as follows : — 
My dear Jones, — I feel it a compliment 
that you make use of my letter, though I should 
have written it more carefully if I had anticipated 
print. 

Your objection to the trump lead is strong. 
It would have been decisive, if I fully agreed with 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



your premises, but I don't think it wants ' an an- 
gel ' to refrain from returning the trump lead. I 
think that most very good players, say Petrie, 
Storey, Hermann, and many others, and I am 
sure yourself, would not return the trump unless 
strong in hearts. ' The queen of trumps ' they 
would say, — ' rather a queer card, — can't possibly 
be a singleton, — almost sure to be the bottom of 
tierce major. Why doesn't he go on ? He wants 
to show me his strength in trumps, but has weak 
suits, — his hearts the best, — he wishes to see 
whether I can help him there, or anywhere else — 
and leaves me to decide whether it is well to draw 
the trumps. 

This appears to me very simple, all the more 
simple that it is the first card played, from which 
every one looks for some inkling as to the gen- 
eral scheme of the hand, /should most certainly 
reason thus, but you flatter me in saying that I 
alone should do so. You would, undoubtedly, 
unless you were playing carelessly, and so would 
many other players, less good, and less given to 
reflection than yourself. 

Think of this ; the card, — itself unusual, — the 
changing suit, — all call for thought in the partner, 
and seem to say, — ' Now think a bit, and mind 

what you are at, — don't play like , 

machinalement, 

Quce cumita sint, the queen of trumps if your 



252 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



partner is a very good player, — a heart if he is 
not. My mind is made up, and I won't unpack 
it. 

I don't say that in a similar difficulty, later in 
the hand, similar reflections would pass through 
my mind. They ought to do, — but one has gen- 
erally taken up some idea, or scheme, which one 
does not readily abandon. The first card ! This 
makes a great difference — does it not ? It comes 
on you just as you are putting things in order 
for the general scheme. You must think then, 
if ever. 

I think you'll come round to my notion, 
though you mayn't confess it, — at least, not in 
print. 

" Yours very truly, 

James Clay." 

It appears to me that we were as nearly agreed 
as possible ; but Clay assumed that, with certain 
partners, the trump lead would be safe to be un- 
derstood, while I assumed that it would probably 
be misunderstood. 

I am still in doubt as to the best lead, but think 
that with ' an angel ' for a partner one round of 
trumps, as a feeler, would be right. This was 
Hermann's view, a man of deep Whist percep- 
tion. 

With ninety-nine partners out of a hundred, or 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 253 

even nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thou- 
sand, I think the heart would be the right lead. 

These arguments result in a very singular con- 
clusion, viz., that the suit to be led originally, — 
the first card of the hand, — will sometimes de- 
pend on who is your partner. 



The question is often put to me, Why did you 
choose the mm de plume of * Cavendish ' ?" 

I can honestly say that on first rushing into 
print I had no idea any particular value attached 
to the copyright of a small book, or to an author's 
nom de plume. So I gave the matter of pseudonym 
but little thought, and stuck down on the title- 
page the name of a club where I used to play 
small Whist. 

Assistance received from Clay has already been 
acknowledged ; and it may be added that almost 
every book bearing my nom de plume is more or 
less indebted to several friendly helpers. 

In the case of Whist, the idea of pubHshing 
hands played completely through is not mine ; 
nor is the scheme mine of giving reasons and ar- 
guments for all the principles of play, instead of 
stating them, as was previously done, in the form 
of isolated and arbitrary conventions. I have only 
clothed with words, — and indeed not always that 
— the results of the discussions of E W , 



254 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



D J , W D G , and C 

B C , all valued friends, and members of 

the little school that obtained notoriety in 1871, 
in consequence of an article on Whist which ap- 
peared in the Quarterly Review^ in January of 
that year. 

The writer of that article said, — 

" Between 1850 and i860, a knot of young men 
at Cambridge, of considerable ability, who had at 
first taken up Whist for amusement, found it offer 
such a field for intellectual study, that they con- 
tinued its practice more systematically, with a 
view to its complete scientific investigation. Since 
the adoption of Short Whist, the constant prac- 
tice of adepts had led to the introduction of many 
improvements in detail, but nothing had been 
done to reduce the modern play into a systematic 
form, or to lay it clearly before the public. Its 
secrets, so far as they differed from the precepts 
of Hoyle and Matthews, were confined to small 
coteries of club-players. The little Whist-school 
held together afterwards in London, and added to 
its numbers ; and, in 1862, one of its members 
brought out the work published under the name 
of ' Cavendish.' 

Now, to an article in the Quarterly there is no 
direct reply, as correspondence is not there per, 
mitted. It seems, however, that a writer in the 
Morning Post took umbrage at the above-quoted 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



passage ; and in that paper he poured out the 
vials as follows : — 

^ Cavendish/ who, in his modest preface, makes 
no profession of originality so far as rules or prin- 
ciples are concerned, strange to say, does not so 
much as allude to the ' little Whist-School,' to 
which he must have been so largely indebted. 
Stranger still, none of the most celebrated Whist- 
players appear to have been aware of the exist- 
ence of this school, nor of any school that could 
possibly have formed an epoch, within the last 
twenty years. ^ -^f That Graham's, the greatest 
of card-clubs, did nothing to reduce the modern 
play into a systematic form — leaving it to be per- 
fected, not by the Portland, the next greatest of 
Whist-clubs, but by a knot of young men at Cam- 
bridge — is one of the most startling paradoxes I 
ever remember to have met. Shades of Granville, 
Sefton, De Ros, Deschapelles, Aubrey, George 
Anson, Henry Bentinck, John Bushe, Charles 
Greville ! is it come to this ? Why, of the great- 
est living players there is hardly one who did not 
graduate in honors more than twenty years ago. 
And Whist is much in the same condition as art, 
literature, statesmanship, eloquence, and fashion. 
Its brightest illustrations belong to a preceding 
generation, or to one that is fast dying out. 

*'An Amateur.'' 



256 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



To this I replied in the Morning Post, as 
under : — 

I ask space to set your readers right with the 
'knot of young men ' who are rather unkindly 
dealt with by 'An Amateur/ Your correspond- 
ent insinuates that this set of young men ignored 
Graham's and the Portland, and all former rules 
and principles, and went to work to elaborate a 
theory of their own, independently of all the most 
celebrated players, and that, in consequence, they 
compassed the complete development of the game 
of Whist, and brought it to its present scientific 
state. This is a most unfair way to view the 
discussions of half-a-dozen private gentlemen, who 
really did not know that they were doing any- 
thing but enjoying themselves over a half-crown 
rubber. Moreover, it [' An Amateur's ' letter] is 
a travestie of the story in the Quarterly, ^ * ^ 
The writer in the Quarterly does not assert that 
all, or even the greater part, of the improvements 
in the game, since the time of Hoyle, were origi- 
nated by a knot of young men at Cambridge. 
All he states is, that, through the agency of these 
young men, it happened that the game was first 
presented to the public in a systematic form. 
The Quarterly Reviewer admits that the secrets 
or principles of the modern game were known to 
coteries of club-players. All he contends for is 
that they had never been published, or, to quote 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



257 



his own words, ' laid clearly before the public.' 
* * Your correspondent says that, in my pre- 
face, I make no allusion to the Mittle Whist- 
School,' to which I ' must have been so largely in- 
debted.' The reason is obvious. The gentlemen 
referred to by the Quarterly certainly did not 
consider themselves a * school ' in the sense of be- 
ing founders of an epoch in the game. They 
merely met together and discussed, according to 
their lights, the ideas of the best players to whom 
they had access ; and I, as one of them, must 
plead guilty to having ultimately thrown out the 
results of such discussions in the form of a syste- 
matic treatise," 

W D G , one of the little school, 

also wrote to the same effect. He added two 
points of detail — viz., that the little school con- 
sisted originally of five members ; that they be- 
gan to study the game in 1854; and that, as they 
could not find any treatise in existence from which 
the game could be learnt, they habitually referred 
points of difficulty to the leading players of the 
Portland Club, — notably to Mr. Clay, — though 
other members kindly gave their opinion from, 
time to time. 

To these letters An Amateur*' responded to 
the following effect : — 

It was far from his thoughts to hurt the feel- 
ings or deny the merits of the little school. The 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



tendency of his remarks was to show that they 
did nothing extraordinary, elaborated nothing, 
compassed nothing. They were doubtless as sur- 
prised to hear they had been creating a system or 
advancing a science, as M. Jourdain was to find 
he had spoken prose all his life without knowing 
it. But the morning after the appearance of the 
Quarterly they awoke and, like Byron after the 
publication of Childe Harold," found themselves 
famous. An Amateur" specially contests, with 
several arguments, the proposition asserting or 
assuming the marked influence of the school ; 
and, inasmuch as they regularly referred to the 
Portland in their difficulties, the very utmost they 
could have done was to suggest the production of 
a systematic treatise to their Corypheus, who nat- 
urally consulted the highest authorities, oral and 
written. 

There was no further correspondence in the 
Post, But other papers took up the subject. A 
leader appeared in the Daily Telegraphy which is 
so cleverly and amusingly written that I make no 
excuse for quoting it in extenso: — 

Daily Telegraph," January 31, 1871. 

In the midst of these wars, and rumors of 
wars, it is pleasant to find that in the world there 
is yet room for hostilities of a less sanguinary kind. 
Whilst all are looking for the latest telegrams from 



CARD'TABLE TALK, 



259 



Versailles, a few can still busy themselves with let- 
ters, and replies to letters, in the great Whist-Con- 
troversy. The question seems to be this : To what 
degree of credit are the five * Friends in Council ' en- 
titled, who, from the year 1854 or thereabouts, met 
in secret conclave, and meditated much on the 
problems presented by this attractive game ? The 
practical outcome of their deliberations is to be 
found in the Httle treatise on Whist which bears 
the honored name of ' Cavendish.' We have all 
read that valuable book, but without being at all 
aware that we were treading on dangerous ground. 
The article in the last number of the Quarterly 
Review seems to have originated the dispute in 
the columns of a fashionable contemporary — or, 
more properly speaking, the dispute has grown 
out of it. Did ' Cavendish * and his four friends 
constitute a school ? Did they pretend to be a 
school at all ? Was there any learned Whist be- 
fore their day? or had such learning as existed 
merely fallen into desuetude in consequence of 
the changes in the theory and style of play? In 
fact, what had been done before the time of 
* Cavendish ' and his friends, ' to reduce the 
modern play into a systematic form, or to lay it 
clearly before the public ' ? Many rash and mis- 
guided persons may be of the hasty opinion that 
here is the old story of a storm in a teapot. With 
what amount of laurel shall the head of the 



26o 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



gallant 'Major A * be crowned? What has 

' Coelebs ' of the Portland done for the world in 
general and Whist-societies in particular? Is 
* Cavendish ' a true man, or a mere buckram pre- 
tender, and his four friends aiders and abettors 
in the sham ? We will say nothing about the 
venerable Hoyle, who might have deserved the 
respect of * Sarah Battle ' and ladies and gentle- 
men of her standing — but who, for us, is clearly 
out of date. But how about Mathews? Time 
was when we used to hear Whist-adepts rave 
about Mathews. If Mathews were with you it 
signified not if all the world were against you. 
We do not affect to speak with authority, but our 
surmise would be that real Whist-antiquaries 
would even in the present day recognize the merits 
of a writer who stood between the two systems. 
For modern use, and by modern usage, we should 
say that there are three treatises upon Whist 
which are habitually referred to and quoted by 
players. The first in date would be that of 

' Major A published originally in 1835. 

Then we have * Coelebs,' who hails from the Port- 
land, and who dates from that sacred locality, in 
1858. Finally, we have the little treatise of *• Cav- 
endish,' which seems to be of the year 1862. At 
any rate, one of the angry disputants, who does 
not appear to be partial to ■ Cavendish ' and his 
friends, asks in a high strain of moral indignation, 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



261 



*Was there no treatise in existence from which 
the game could be learnt prior to 1862 ? ' Now, 
as this is a stone hurled into the little camp of 
the ' Cavendishes/ it does not seem to be a rash 
conjecture that the year named was the one in 
which they enlightened mankind, for the first time, 
on the subject of 'V Short Whist." At any rate, 
if we are wrong upon this important point, most 
persons will agree with us in thinking that it does 
not much matter. We make no mention of Mr. 
James Clay, the vir pietate gravis of Short Whist. 
Why should he be drawn into the dispute save 
for honorable mention ? 

One can't help thinking of the old story of 
Uncle Toby and the Fly. There surely was room 

enough in the world for ' Major A ' Coelebs,* 

and ' Cavendish.' Why should such clever fellows 
fall out, and upon the subject of a mere game ? 

So it is, however. Of ^ Major A ' in person 

— whether he be an actual warrior still on half- 
pay — or, as one may say, a gallant ghost — we 
need say nothing ; but we should presume that 
the * Major' had been snatched away from his 
club long ago. Dr. Pole, however, wrote a preface 

to the treatise of ' Major A ' in 1864, and 

appears to have observed a contemptuous silence 
with regard to the efforts of the ' Cavendish ' 
clique or school. This was rather ill-natured, but 
is a mere trifle when compared with the general 



262 



CARD-TABLE TALtC. 



fierceness of * Amateur/ a devoted partisan of 

* Major A 's/ who dates from the Athenaeum 

Club in the present year. ' Amateur ' can only- 
see through ' Major A 's ' spectacles, and hates 

the poor Cavendishites, as one may say, lijce poi- 
son. Surely it is a little spiteful to lug in the 
unfortunate and celebrated Tailors in Tooley- 
street because * Cavendish ' and his friends were 
originally five in number — that is, writes * Ama- 
teur,' ' two more than the Tailors in Tooley- 
street.' * Cavendish ' might reply, in the same 
humorous way, that ' Amateur' was two less than 
the Tailors in Tooley-street. Of course, it is not 
for us to say whether Dr. Pole meant mischief to 
^ Cavendish ' and his party when he wrote in 
1870, — ^ Never once alluding to "Cavendish'' and 
his school ' — as follows : ' Some of the later works 
published on Whist have been more explanatory 
than the early ones, but still they have consisted 
at best of merely practical rules without reference 
to their theoretical basis.' This, in the opinion of 

* Amateur,' is a coup-de-grdce to ' the little school 
and their Corypheus.' Well, then, as ' Major 

A ,' or at least the Major's friends, appear to 

think so slightly of other Whist-pundits, let us 
see in what estimation he and his work are held 
by competent men. Here is an expression of 
opinion from ^ Coelebs ' of the Portland. The 
public, we are very confident, will forgive the 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



263 



quotation — it reads so like the utterance of one 
old German Grammarian against another who 
entertained perilous views on the subject of a 
second aorist. Listen to ' Coelebs ' : The intro- 
duction of Short Whist called forth in 1836 the 
work known under the nom de phmie of ^ Major 
A- ! With verbose augmentations, the au- 
thor's instructions are nearly identical with those 
of Mathews, like whom he despises any approach 
to methodical arrangement, continually repeating 
similar maxims, separating exceptions from rules, 
and examples from both, jumbling original data 
with derivative results, presenting altogether such 
a labyrinth of advice and apparent inconsistency 
as no pupil can easily unravel. A * little learning ' 
is the sure result of such immethodical treatises 
not embracing any general outline before descend- 
ing to minutiae." So far, ' Ccelebs * on ' Major 

A who is dear to * Amateur,' who again 

scorns ' Cavendish ' and his friends, and who 
suggests by implication that they are tailors. 

Surely all this is a little foolish, inasmuch as 
we have never even heard it suggested that the 
object of any of the parties was to hold himself 
out as the author and proprietor of the stock 
work upon Whist. Such a course would be in- 
telligible enough on obvious grounds ; but here is 
rather a question of vanity than of profit. The 
strictures of * Amateur ' roused * Cavendish ' from 



264 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



his rubber at the Portland. He writes a Httlc on 
his own account, but a good deal on behalf of his 
friends. He exclaims against the propriety of 
bringing them before the public at all, inasmuch 
as they simply met to play their rubber for half- 
crown points, and never assumed the character 
of a school at all. True it is, as * Cavendish ' and 
they were jointly interested in the game, they 
used to discuss together any points which might 
arise, and endeavored to raise themselves to the 
level of modern practice. The result of their 
discussions was the treatise of * Cavendish,* but 
they had arrived at their results by fair reasoning 
and by referring points of difficulty for the judg- 
ment of the leading players at the Portland Club, 

* In this way they became acquainted with the 
latest developments of the game.' ' Cavendish * 
claims that the modern game was first presented 
to the public in a systematic form in consequence 
of these discussions and these references. He 
does not pretend to have invented what w^as new. 
The principles of the new game were well known 
to coteries of club-players : * Cavendish ' did his 
best to collect these, and to lay them before the 
public in a systematic form. This it is which puts 

* Amateur * in such a tow^ering passion, since it is 
his opinion that ' Major A — - — ' as his work was 
developed, had done all that was necessary under 
this head. The publication of the article in the 



CARD- TABLE TALK. 



265 



* Quarterly/ which was favorable to the preten- 
sions of ^ Cavendish ' cum suis, furnished the im- 
mediate occasion of this dispute. Ordinary peo- 
ple have derived occasional help from these 
treatises, though it is not often that the moderate 
player in real life sets himself down to consider 
on what principle he should avoid leading from 
ace, knave, or ten. The thing is so, and there is 
good reason for it ; but the higher learning of the 
game has little interest for any but professional 
players — if the word may be used without offence. 
As the matter stands at present, the question 

seems to be. Was ^ Major A ' or * Cavendish * 

first in the field with an exposition of the secrets 
of the new play which, until a certain date, were 
confined to the reverend bosoms of aged club- 
players? There are men living who should be 
able to decide this knotty point ; in the mean- 
while, it is far from disagreeable to get back to 
the old quarrels in which ink, not blood, is shed. 
In such controversies as the one now raging be- 
tween ' Amateur ' and ' Cavendish * there is no 
bitter end.'' 

The Daily News dilso had a leader, which, though 
agreeable reading enough, adds nothing to the 
points of the controversy, and Bell's Life, Figaro, 
The Qtieen, and the Westminster Papers, each con- 
tributed their quantum of praise or blame, seri- 
ousness or chaff, according, I presume, to the 



266 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



frame of mind of the writers of the various ar- 
ticles. 

I will conclude this rather long effusion with 
The Field version of the discussion : — 

"The Field," Feb. 4th, 1871. 

" A rather amusing pen-and-ink contest has 
arisen this week on the subject of Whist. The 
questions seem to be whether before the date of 
' Cavendish * the game of Whist had ever been 
treated on a systematic basis, and whether the 
gentlemen whose discussions were pubHshed by 
' Cavendish ' are entitled to the credit of having 
exerted any marked influence on the Whist of 
the present day. We are inclined to the view 
that the first question should be answered in the 
negative, and the second in the affirmative. Had 
the knot of young men referred to in the Quar- 
terly never met, there would have been no * Cav- 
endish,' and perhaps no Clay, no Pole, no article 
on Whist-players in Fraser nor in the Quarterly, 
no card department in The Field — in short, no 
modern scientific Whist published to the world. 
We direct our readers to a letter from 'Caven- 
dish ' in another column, which will enable them 
to judge as to the rights of this pretty little 
quarrel.'' 

I make no apology for quoting my own letter, 
which ran as follows : — 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



267 



" To the Editor of The Field, 

Sir, — I trust I may be excused for entering 
on some personal matters in relation to Whist. 
You are of course aware that in the Quarterly 
Review for January appeared an article on mod- 
ern Whist, containing a learned account of the 
history of the game, and concluding with a review 
of certain books. 

" In the course of the historical essay the fol- 
lowing passage occurs : — 

' Between 1850 and i860 a knot of young men 
at Cambridge, of considerable ability, who had at 
first taken up Whist for amusement, found it of- 
fer such a field for intellectual study, that they 
continued its practice more systematically, with 
a view to its complete scientific investigation. 
Since the general adoption of Short Whist, the 
constant practice of adepts had led to the intro- 
duction of many improvements in detail, but 
nothing had been done to reduce the modern 
play into a systematic form, or to lay it clearly 
before the public. Its secrets, so far as they dif- 
fered from the precepts of Hoyle and Matthews, 
were confined to small coteries of club-players. 
The little Whist-school held together afterwards 
in London, and added to its numbers ; and, in 
1862, one of its members brought out the work 
published under the name of Cavendish." ' 

This passage has been the subject of com- 



268 CARD-TABLE TALK. 



1 



ment during the past week in several newspapers 
of high standing ; the points raised being, Did the 
* knot of young men ' originate, or elaborate, or 
compass anything? or did they draw their inspira- 
tion from other sources, and merely arrange what 
was well known and procurable before ? 

I think the knot of young men did originate 
something, and I believe that the result of their 
discussions when put into book form was more 

than a re-arrangement of previously existing mat- 
ter. 

" In order fairly to decide as to what was novel 
in their work, we must first notice what had been 
previously done. Prior to the appearance of our 
treatise — I say * our,* for without the valuable as- 
sistance of members of the little school I alone 
should not have rushed into print — the treatises 
in vogue were those of Hoyle, Matthews, and 
' Coelebs.' 

Of Hoyle it is impossible to speak but in 
terms of high praise, notwithstanding that his 
style was somewhat obscure. His advice is mainly 
correct — wonderfully so, if we consider that in his 
day the game was in its infancy. As an example, 
he pointed out that with king, queen,, knave, and 
one small card the proper lead is the king ; 
but that with two small cards the proper lead is 
the knave. There was, however, but little method 
in his treatment, and but little argument in his 



CAED'TABLE TALK. 



269 



pages. He confined himself to stating cases, 
without entering into principles. I do not mean 
to say that he did not explain the reason for the 
difference in the two leads given as an example. 
He did so ; but he stopped there. He did not 
generalize. The generalization of the above rule 
would be, that if you lead from a sequence, and 
desire your partner to win the card led, you should 
lead the lowest of the sequence ; but that if you 
desire him to pass the trick, you should lead the 
highest. Nothing of this kind will be found in 
Hoyle. 

Matthews or Mathews (for the name is spelt 
differently in different editions) carried out apian 
similar to that of Hoyle. He stated many cases 
of great interest, and cases containing much in- 
struction. As an example I may quote from 
memory the following : — ' Q. Having ace, knave, 
ten, and a small card, second hand, a small card 
being led, what should you play? A. In plain 
suits the small card; in trumps the ten. The 
reason is that a small card is never led from king, 
queen, in plain suits ; consequently one of those 
cards must be in the third or fourth hands, and 
the ten would be played to no purpose. But in 
trumps, king and queen may both be in the lead- 
er's hand.' Matthews, like Hoyle, has no system, 
and he never refers to general principles. In 
fact, he only professes to give a selection of cases. 



270 CARD^TABLE TALK. 

''Of 'Major A I say nothing. 'Major 

A * is merely Matthews done into Short 

Whist, with irrelevant additions. Thus, when 

Matthews says ' nine all,* ^ Major A * says 

' four all,' and when Matthews says ^ with queen, 

knave, put on your knave,' ' Major A ' says 

' do not put on your queen ;' and so on through 
the whole book. 

" ^ Ccelebs ' also gives cases and instructions, 
but there he stops ; he never rises to principles. 
He was, however, well aware of the want of 
method in previous treatises. He arranges the 
subject judiciously, his defect being that he omits 
to trace the cases to their true source. 

Now, without for one moment underrating 
the services rendered to Whist by the authors re- 
ferred to, I assert that the great fault in the man- 
ner of teaching which runs through them all is, 
that the rules of play are laid down by these 
writers in the form of isolated and arbitrary cases, 
and that the general principles which overlie all 
these cases are never fully stated, though they 
are occasionally hinted at ; and hence the acquisi- 
tion of knowledge from those books depends 
rather on effort of memory than on occupation of 
the understanding. Rules alone, however correct, 
if not thoroughly comprehended, are often mis- 
chievous, as circumstances may require them to 
be departed from. In such position the player 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



271 



by mere rote is all at sea ; but the one who knows 
well the process of the derivation of the rules on 
which he acts has little difficulty in meeting and 
dealing with exceptional cases. 

What I claim, then, by way of originality for 
the book of ' the little school ' is that, so far as 
in us lay, the reasoning on which the principles of 
play are based is given logically and completely. 
In this I believe that * Cavendish ' differs materi- 
ally from all prior treatises ; and if this is admitted, 
it follows that the knot of young men did origi- 
nate, did elaborate, did compass something. 

As far as details are concerned I fancy ' the 
little school ' also did something ; but this is a 
minor matter, and it is not denied that from time 
to time fresh details have sprung into life, and 
that some of them are considered improvements. 
Therefore, I will not enter into details. 

" But before closing this letter, I should Hke to 
put on record (since the subject is before the 
public) how it happened that a knot of young 
men, who merely met to enjoy and discuss a rub- 
ber, ever went into print at all. 

When we used to meet in London, notes were 
occasionally made of points which interested us, 
and some experiments were tried, such as match- 
ing two bad players against two good ones, an 
account of which has already appeared in The 
Field, On other occasions, and for a long time, 



272 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



every hand was played out to the end, and the 
result put down on paper, in order to enable us 
to calculate the odds at different points of the 
game. The results of this experiment have also 
appeared in The Field, During these experimen- 
tal rubbers we accumulated a lot of MSS. As 
far as I remember, we had some hazy and unde- 
fined idea of publishing some day ; but no one 
seemed to care about writing a book, and the 
papers were thrown into a drawer, and remained 
there, half forgotten for several years. 

^' It so happened, however, that in December, 
1 861, there appeared \n Macmillan s Magazine 'd.xv 
article on cards, recommending and describing 
Piquet and Bezique ; the latter was then scarcely 
played in this country. In a foot-note the writer 
expressed an opinion that some games at Whist 
might be advantageously published, on the same 
plan as that followed with games of chess. I 
happened to read the article, and I wrote to the 
author of the paper, offering to lend him the MS. 
notes of the little school. This offer he accepted ; 
but I found, on rummaging them out, we had 
taken so much for granted in our memoranda that 
it was necessary, in order to make any one else 
understand them, to rewrite and to add copious 
notes. Presently I found that I had to repeat the 
same note ; so, in order to save the trouble of re- 
writing all the reasons for, say, causing A to lead 



CARD-TABLE TALK, 



273 



from his strongest suit, I erected this into a prin- 
ciple, argued it out, and afterwards referred to 
principle i. This was the skeleton of the book; 
and, on being urged to publish, I obtained the 
co-operation of the members of ' the little school,' 
and, aided by their remarks and suggestions, ap- 
peared as an author. And, having talked a good 
deal about myself, I would add that, whatever 
originality there maybe in our ' labor of love,' the 
credit is mainly due to my friends, towards whom 
I stand only in the relation of a mouthpiece. 

''The Author of * Cavendish on Whist/" 



The experiment just referred to, viz., the match- 
ing two good players against two bad ones, was 
undertaken in order to ascertain approximately 
the advantage of skill. It arose and was conduct- 
ed as follows : — 

In the latter part of the winter of 1857, during 
an after-dinner conversation, it was remarked by 
some of the party that Whist is a mere matter of 
chance, since no amount of ingenuity can make a 
king win an ace, and so on. This produced an 
argument as to the merits of the game ; and as 
two of the disputants obstinately maintained the 
original position, it was proposed to test their 
powers by matching them against two excellent 
players in the room. To this match, strange to 



274 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



say, the bad players agreed, and a date was fixed. 
Before the day arrived, it was proposed to play 
the match in double, another rubber of two good 
against two bad players being formed in an adjoin- 
ing room, and the hands being played over again, 
the good players having the cards previously held 
by the bad ones, and vice versa, the order of the 
play being, of course, in every other respect pre- 
served. The difficulty now w^as to find two play- 
ers sufficiently bad for the purpose ; but two men 
were found, on condition of having odds laid them 
at starting, which was accordingly done. 

On the appointed day, a table was formed in 
room A, and as soon as the first hand was played, 
the cards Avere re-sorted and conveyed into room 
B. There the hand was played over again, the 
good players in room B having the cards that the 
bad players had in room A. At the end of the 
hand, the result was noted for comparison, inde- 
pendently of the score, which was conducted in 
the usual way. Thirty-three hands were played 
in each room. In room A, the good players held 
very good cards, and won four rubbers out of six ; 
in points, a balance of eighteen. In room B, the 
good players had, of course, the bad cards. They 
played seven rubbers with the same number of 
hands that in the other room had played six, and 
they won three out of the seven, losing seven 
points on the balance. The difference, therefore, 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



275 



was eleven points, or nearly one point a rubber in 
favor of skill. 

A comparison of tricks only showed some curi- 
ous results. In seven of the hands the score by 
cards in each room was the same. In eighteen 
hands the balance of the score by cards was in 
favor of the superior players ; in eight hands in 
favor of the inferior. In one of these hands the 
bad players won two by cards at one table, and 
three by cards at the other. 

The most important result is, that at both tables 
the superior players gained a majority of tricks. 
In room A, they won on the balance nineteen by 
tricks ; in room B, they won two by tricks. 

It will be observed that this experiment does 
not altogether eliminate luck, as bad play some- 
times succeeds. But by far the greater part of 
luck, viz., that due to the superiority of winning 
cards, is, by the plan described, quite got rid of. 

Dr. Pole {The Field, June 16, 1866) arrives at a 
result nearly the same by a statistical method. 
He writes to this effect : — 

It is very desirable to ascertain the value of 
skill at Whist. 

The voluntary power we have over results at 
Whist is compounded of — i. The system of play ; 
2. The personal skill employed." 

The modern system, which combines the hands 
of the two partners, as against no system (the per- 



276 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



sonal skill of all being pretty equal), is worth — 
Dr. Pole thinks — about half a point a rubber, or 
rather more. About nine hundred rubbers play- 
ed by systematic as against old-fashioned players 
gave a balance of nearly five hundred points in 
favor of system. 

The personal skill will vary with each individual, 
and is difficult to estimate ; but looking at pub- 
lished statistics, in which Dr. Pole had confidence, 
he puts the advantage of a very superior player 
(all using system) at about a quarter of a point a 
rubber. Consequently, the advantage due to 
combined personal skill (/>., two very skilful against 
two very unskilful players, all using system) 
would be more than half a point a rubber. 

The conclusion arrived at by Dr. Pole is that 
the total advantage of both elements of power 
over results at Whist may, under very favorable 
circumstances, be expected to amount to as much 
as one point per rubber.*' 

Now, at play-clubs, nearly all the players ad- 
here more or less closely to system, and the great 
majority have considerable personal skill. Con- 
sequently, only the very skilful player can expect 
to win anything, and he will only have the best 
player at the table for a partner on an average 
once in three times. It follows from this that 
the expectation of a very skilful player at a play- 
club will only average, at the most, say a fifth or 
a sixth of a point a rubber. 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



277 



January, 1879. — Mortimer Collins' ''Life/* 
published not long since, it is stated that I told 
him I had played 20,000 rubbers in ten years, and 
that I had won i^2,ooo. 

I will not enter into the question of the pro- 
priety of publishing gossip of this kind, and of 
giving names without permission. I am not 
ashamed of having played on an average half a 
dozen rubbers a day, nor of having won. But, 
had I been asked, I should have certainly refused 
permission to make my private affairs public. 
Many goody-goody people might think me very 
horrid*' to waste so much time at the card-table, 
and to play for so much money. 

The statement published by Mortimer Collins' 
widow is mere talk, and is devoid of all scientific 
interest. The amount of money won or lost is 
not any criterion of the result, unless the amount 
of the points is given, and the stakes are never 
changed. What is interesting is, to know what 
percentage of advantage or disadvantage attaches 
to the individual in consequence of his personal 
skill or the want of it. The way to arrive at this 
is to keep an account of a long series of rubbers ; 
the longer the series, the more closely the result 
will approximate to the truth. Even when ar- 
rived at, the answer will only be true for the indi- 
vidual, as against the set with whom he is in the 
habit of contending. Deschapelles estimated his 

1 



278 



CARD-TABLE TALK. 



advantage at Long Whist at a quarter of a point 
a rubber. My averages, at Short Whist, are not 
nearly so good as this. But then Deschapelles 
was facile princeps^ and Long Whist gives greater 
scope for play than Short. Again, I am in the 
habit of avoiding tables where the players are not 
pretty good. This must, of course, affect the 
averages. 

My averages are as under. I should premise 
that the rubbers to which the account refers were 
all played at clubs where good play was the rule. 
Whatever the results may be worth, I give them 
from January, i860, to December, 1878: — 

Played in all . . 30,668 rubbers. 
Won .... 15,648 
Lost .... 15,020 



Won . . 628 rubbers. 

Or, on the average, won one rubber in forty- 
nine, a trifle over two per cent. 

The points give the following averages : — 

Won in all . . . 85,486 points. 
Lost . . . .81,055 " 

Won . . 4,431 points. 

Or, on the average, as nearly as possible, one 
seventh of a point a rubber. 



CarD-ta^le talk. 



The average value of a rubber is rather more 
than five points and two fifths (5.43). The aver- 
age value of rubbers won is 5.46 points; of rub- 
bers lost, is 5.40, giving a difference of six- 
hundredths (or about one seventeenth) of a point 
per rubber in favor of winning rubbers over los- 
ing ones. 

January, 1879. — During the last sixteen years I 
have answered in writing nearly 10,000 questions 
on the laws of games, chiefly Whist. But other 
games are often the subject of queries. My in- 
terrogators seem to think I ought to know the 
rules of all games, from pitch-and-toss to man- 
slaughter. With a little trouble I generally 
manage to find some one who can inform me 
who is the best authority on bumble-puppy or 
some other outlandish game, when I in turn be- 
come an interrogator. 

Some of the questions are very droll. The 
following, from a lady in the country, a total 
stranger, came to hand about Chrismas, 1877:— 

May teetotallers join in the game of snap- 
dragon ?" 



FINIS. 



INDEX. 



A 

Adams, Major, decision on 

disputed bet on the odd 

trick, 143, 267, 270. 
Addison, in No. 93 of The 

Spectator, on Play, 36. 
Adversaries, misdirection by, 

133. 

Adversary's hand, card jump- 
ing into, 135. 

Age of the existence of play- 
ing-cards, 46. 

Aix, Archdeacon of, 35. 

"Alice," Bulwer's reference 
to Whist in, 9. 

Alphonso the Wise, Don, 51. 

Atfibigu, 70, 71. 

"Amateur, An," 255. 

Ames, William, preaches 
against cards and dice, 24. 

American Hoyle, the, 220. 

" Anatomie of Abuses," the, 
20. 

Anne, Queen, cards first sub- 
jected to a duty in reign 
of, by consent of Parlia- 
ment, 97. 

Antiquaries, Society of, 96. 

Antony and Cleopatra, 219. 



Arabian origin of cards, 50. 
Arabs introduce cards into 

Spain and Europe, 47. 
Average amount of winning 

and losing, 277, 278. 



B 

Backgammon, 49. 
Bailey, 67. 

Balmford, James, on the 
unlawfulness of playing at 
cards or tables, 21. 

Barrington, Hon. Daines, 
on the spelling of Whist,%2\ 
on the game of "Swab- 
bers," 91. 

Bartsch, Adam, 79. 

Bassett, 67, 70. 

Bastoni, 56. 

Bedford Row, 78. 

Bell's Life, 265. 

Bentinck, Sir Henry, man- 
ner of playing Whist, 182. 

Bernard's, Philidor, successor 
as monarch of the board, 4. 

Berni, 63, 74. 

Bet, disputed, on the odd 
trick, 143. 



282 



INDEX. 



Bettinelli, 70. 

Betting, when it is and is 
not gambling, 44; on cer- 
tainties, 235, 236. 

Bezique, 59 ; pocket guide 
to, 221. 

Bibliophiles Fran9ais, So- 

ciete des, 79. 
Bibliography, 79. 
Bidder, Mr., 218. 
Bishoppe, Geo., 19. 
Boiteau, Paul, 62, 79. 
Bolognese diminish the pack 

to sixty-four cards, 61. 
Book- Whist, 188. 
Brag, 68 ; similarity to Poke7\ 
224. 

Brewer, Dr. E. Cobham, on 
the derivation of the word 
Whist, 85. 

Broad Hembury, Vicar of, 39. 

Bulwer, reference to Whist 
in his novel " Alice," 9. 

Burney, Admiral, 12. 

Butler, Archdeacon, opinions 
as to immorality of gaming, 
30 ; opinion of Jeremy Tay- 
lor, 30. 

Bystanders at Whist, 225. 



Calabrasella, 59. 

Call for trumps, 183, 187, 
208, 238. 

Called, is a lowered hand 
liable to be? 156. 

Callimachus, 36. 

Card clubs, Thackeray on, 
65 ; jumping into adversa- 
ry's hand, 135 ; laws, 130 ; 
table talk, 165-279. 

Cards compared to dice, 20. 

Cards and card games, origin 
and development of, 46. 



1 Cards in Europe due to inven- 
tion, 46. 
Cards introduced into Europe, 
46 ; by way of Spain by 
the Arabs, Saracens, or 
Moors, 47 ; brought into the 
city of Viterbo in 1379, 47 ; 
in use in 141 7, 48 ; their 
source in Europe, 48 ; 
analogies between the In- 
dian and European game, 
49 ; oriental origin, 50 ; 
earliest mention in 1278, 
51 ; theories regarding the 
marks of the suits, 55 ; du- 
ties on, 95-113 ; imposi- 
tions on their manufacture, 
97-113 ; unusual distribu- 
tion of, 215. 
Catch-the-Ten, 219. 
Cavendish on disputed bet, 
etc., 144 ; on disputed mis- 
deal, 147 ; on player called 
on not to win trick, 151 ; 
dissents from Clay's deci- 
sion on player called on not 
to win trick, 152 ; reply 
to Mogul" and ''Lincoln's 
Inn," 158 ; pocket guide 
to Bezique, 221 ; leading 
longest suit, 245 ; nom de 
plume, 253 ; reply to "An 
Amateur," 255 ; why his 
book was first written, 271. 
Celestial Empire, 48. 
Cicognara, Leopoldo, 79. 
Cent, le, 73. 

Certainties, betting on, 235.- 
Cientos, 74. 

City of Viterbo, history of , 47. 
Chance, games of, 13 ; mixed 
games of skill and, 13 ; in 
Whist, 14 ; diminishes the 
labor of playing Whist, 15 ; 
vs. skill, 273, 



INDEX. 



283 



Chance and skill in Whist, 1 1 ; 
too great in Whist to render 
the game a perfect one, 13. i 

Charles L, 74, 97. 

Charles VI., 52. | 

Chatto, Wm. Andrew, 41, 79 ; | 
on the derivation of the I 
name 86; of the word | 

swabbers, 92, i 

Chaucer, 51. | 

Cheating at cards, 130. 

Chess inexhaustible for prac- ; 
tical purposes, 6 ; variety 
in, 6 ; compared with Whist, 
7 ; social relations, 9 ; as a 
business, 13 ; as a distrac- 
tion from toil, 13 ; not a 
game, 13 ; Bishop Ridley 
playing at, 39 ; of Eastern , 
origin, 49. 

China, playing-cards anciently ; 
known in, 46. 

Chinese, cards invented by, 
48. . 1 

Claiming honors, 132. 

Clay, opinion of Deschapelles, 
4; on ''Short Whist'' 13, | 
60,. 78 ; decisions of, 129 ; \ 
decision on claiming hon- : 
ors, 132 ; decision on card i 
jumping into adversary's ; 
hand, 135 ; decision on mis- \ 
direction by adversaries, j 
134 ; decision on declaring | 
a card but omitting to play j 
it, 136; decision on renounc- | 
ing in error, 141 ; objection j 
to his decision on renounc- | 
ing in error, 142 ; decision j 
on a disputed bet on the odd I 
trick, 143 ; decision on time j 
for correcting a renounce i 
in error, 145 ; decision on I 
disputed misdeal, 148 ; de- I 
cision on consultation be- \ 



tween partners, 149 ; deci- 
sion on rubber paid for when 
not won, 158 ; decision on 
player called on not to win 
a trick, 152 ; decision on 
disputed revoke, 153 ; deci- 
sion on mixing a trick with 
the hand, 154 ; decision on 
r^-leading and dealing out 
of turn, 155 ; decision on 
lowered hand being called, 
1 59 ; on the word ' ' touched, " 
167 ; reminiscences of, 167 ; 
brilliancy in play, 174; man- 
ner of playing, 177 ; on play- 
ing false cards, 177 ; man- 
ner of shuffling, 179 ; anec- 
dotes of , 179,180; on which 
of three suits should lead, 
248. 

Cleopatra, Antony and, 219. 
Club committees, 228. 
" Coelebs,-' 267, 270. 
Collier, Jeremy, on gambling, 
36. 

Collins, Mortimer, 277. 

Committees to revise the laws 
of Whist, 14. 

Comparison between Whist 
and Chess, 3, 7 ; Chess and 
Double-dummy , 4 ; Chess 
and Whist as resembling 
practical politics, 11 ; unfit- 
ness as a recreation, 12 , as 
to preliminary instruction 
required, 12 ; as to amount 
of interest excited by, 13, 
15. 

Coningsby, Sir Richard, pat- 
ent on the rent and sale of 
playing-cards, 95. 

Construction, simplicity of, 
of Whist, 12. 

Consultation between part- 
ners, 148. 



284 



INDEX. 



Coquimbert, 71. 

Correcting a renounce in er- 
ror, 144. 

Cotgrave, 71; on the deriva- 
tion of the word Trtmipy 
90; '* French and English 
Dictionary," 219. 

Cotton, 67, 75; on Whisk and 
Whist, 76, 77, 82; on the 
game of Ruff, 87. 

Coup, the grand, 244. 

Covelluzzo, 47, 52. 

Crown Coffee-house, 78. 

Cyprian, St., homily on gam- 
ing, 18, 20. 

D 

Daily News, 265, 

Daily Telegraph, 258, 

Dale, Parson, 35. 

Dawson, Thos., 19* 

Dealing, exposing a card in, 
130, out of turn, 155, 233* 

Decisions of Clay, 129; on 
claiming honors, 132; on 
misdirection by adversaries, 
134; on a card jumping into 
adversary's hand, 135 ; on de- 
claring a card but omitting 
to play it, 136; on renounc- 
ing in error with more than 
one card, 142; on a disputed 
bet on the odd trick (Clay 
and Adams), 143; on a dis- 
puted misdeal, 147; on con- 
sultation between partners, 
149; on a rubber paid for 
when not due, 150; on player 
called on not to win the trick, 
J51; on disputed revoke, 
153; on mixing a trick with 
the hand, 154; on r^-leading 
and dealing out of turn, 155; 
on " Is a lowered hand 
liable to be called?" (" Mo- 



gul"), 157; on same (** Lin- 
coln's Inn"), 158; on same 
(Clay), 159. 
Declaring a card but omitting 

to play it, 136. 
De La Rue, 60. 
Derivation of word Whist, 84. 
I Departure from rule, 174, 175. 
Deschapelles, opinion of Chess, 
4; e/^rj^^j Bernard and Phili- 
dor, 4; idea as to the diffi- 
culties of Whist, 5. 
Development and origin of 

cards and card games, 46. 
"Dialogue, A Short and 

Plain," 21. 
Dice, 19; compared to cards, 
20; determining the move 
in Chess by, 49. 
Dictionary, Barettfs ItaHan, 
62; Cotgrave's French and 
English, 219; " Dictionnaire 
j Universel " on the deriva- 
! tion of the word Whist, 85. 
I Difficulties of Whist as a 
I game, 5. 
I Discard, 243, 244. 
I Dismal Jemmy, 199. 
I Disputed bet on the odd trick, 
1 143; misdeal, 146; revoke, 
I 153. 

i Dissensions from Clay's de- 

1 cision, 137. 

j Distribution of cards, 215. 

I Dolomedes, 36. 

I Dolus, 239. 

i Double-dummy and Chess com- 
I pared, 4. 

j Douce • ' Illustrations of Shake- 
speare," 219. 
Duffer's Whist maxims, The, 
122. 

Dummy, triple, I95. 
i Duties on playing-cards, 95- 

113. 



INDEX. 



E 

Ecart^, 5g. 

Echo^ The^ on nonsense of 
playing for small stakes, 42. 

Eidad and Medad, 29. 

Elizabeth, Queen, 66. 

Emotions, play of, in gaming, 
37. 

Empire, Celestial, 48. 
Enforcing a revoke, 233. 
Error, renouncing in, 141 ; 

scoring in, 197. 
Error, renounce in, time for 

correcting, 144. 
Errors, penalties for, 131. 
Escurial Library, 51. 
Ettrick Shepherd, the, 40. 
Etymology of Whist, 81. 
Etichre, 59, 75. 
Eul-koung, 48. 

Europe, playing-cards im- 
ported into, 46 ; cards car- 
ried into, by means of Gip- 
sies, 47 ; its game compared 
to India's, 50. 

Explanation of the use of 
stakes in card-playing, 43. 

Exposing a card in dealing, 
130. 

F 

**Facheux, Les," Comedy of, 
114. 

Facts and speculations on 
playing-cards, 41. 

False cards, 125 ; notions re- 
specting card clubs, 165 ; 
cards. Clay on the play of, 

177. 
Faro, 70. 

Farquhar on the spelling of 

Whist, 82. 
Feliciano Bussi, 47. 
Field, The, Cavendish's opin- 



j ion on " lowered hand " in, 
I 156, 266. 

j Fielding on the spelling of 
! Whist, 82 ; mention of 
! ""^ whisk-and-swabbers,^' 91. 
; Figaro, 265. 

I Finessing, 180, 203, 209, 210, 
213, 240. 
Flemyng, Vincent, 179. 
Florence, the Minchiate of, 

49, 54. 
i Florio, J., 66. 
i Flush, 62, 70. 
i Forcing, 183, 184, 200. 
\ Fortune-telling, cards used for, 
i 47. 

Frauds to evade duties on 

cards, 106-113. 
French-Ruff, 75, 88. 

Frizzle, Old," 109. 

G 

Gambling in Whist and Chess, 
15, 16 ; what is it? 43, 51. 
Games of skill and chance, 

i 

I Gaming, Essay on, 36. 

Gaming houses, 41, 

Gargantua list, the, 71. 

German cards, Merlin on, 73. 

Getaker, Thos., "On the Na- 
ture and Use of Lots," 24. 

Ghendifeh, 49, 50. 

Gipsies carry cards into Eu- 
rope from India, 47 ; give 
cards to the Moors, 48. 
Glossary" of Nares on deri- 
vation of word Whist, 84 ; 
on derivation of word 
Trump, 90. 

Gringonneur, Jacquemin, 52. 

Grose on the spelling of 
Whist, 82 ; on game of 
"Swabbing," 91. 

Griinn, 56. 



286 



INDEX. 



H 

Hand, mixing a trick with, 
154 ; card jumping into ad- 
versary's, 135. 

Hands, how many, at Whist? 

. 217. 

"Hells," 41. 

Hermann on best lead of 
three suits, 282. 

History of playing-cards, 46 ; 
of the city of Viterbo, 47. 

Honneurs^ les^ 76. 

Honors in Whist, 14 ; reduc- 
tion of, 14 ; claiming, 132, 
188 ; divided, 197 ; scoring 
in error, 197. 

Hoyle on B^'ag, 68 ; on Rever- 
sis, 71, 77 ; old and modern 
lead, 176 ; the American, 
220, 266. 

" Hudibras," 82. 

I 

Illustrations from Shake- 
speare," 219. 

Immorality of gaming, opin- 
ions on : St. Cyprian, 18 ; 
John Northbrooke, 18 ; 
Philip Stubs, 21 ; Spudeus, 
21 ; James Balmford, 21 ; 
Wm. Ames, 24 ; Gisbert 
Voet, 24 ; Thos. Getaker, 
24 ; Jean Barbeyrac, 25 ; 
Archdeacon Butler, 30 ; Lu- 
ther, 35 ; St. Francis de 
Sales, 35 ; John Locke, 35 ; 
Robert Nelson, 35 ; Dolo- 
medes, 36 ; Callimachus, 36; 
Augustus Toplady, 38 ; Dr. 
Johnson, 40 ; John Wilson, 
40 ; Wm. Andrew Chatto, 
41 ; Richard A. Proctor, 42. 

Impositions on manufacture 
of cards, 97-113. 

India, playing-cards ancient- 



ly known in, 46 ; Moham- 
medans of, 50. 

Indian cards, their analogy 
with European games, 49. 

Instruction required in Chess, 
12. 

Interest excited by Whist and 
I Chess, 13, 14. 
! Intermediate sequences, 189. 
! Invective against Dice-play- 
i ing by John Northbrooke, 
i 19- 

j Is a lowered hand liable to 

be called? 156. 
! Italy, 54. 

i J 

I James I., tax first levied on 
I playing cards in reign of 

j (1615), 95. 

Jemmy, Dismal, 199. 

Johnson, Dr., 40, 82 ; on the 
derivation of word Whist, 
84 ; on the game of * * Swab- 
bers," 91. 

K 

Knave, on the use of the, 219. 
L 

Labor of playing Whist di- 
minished by chance, 15. 

La Gana Piei^de, 71. 

Lands knechtspi el, 70. 

Lansquenet, 56, 70. 

Latimer, Bishop, 39; sermon 
"On the Card," 89. 
j Lawfulness of playing games 
I for money, 20. 
i Laws of cards, 130; of " Short 
I Whist," 167, 231. 
I Lead, penultimate, 189. 
I Leading, 122 ; Mathews on, 
j 269 ; the longest suit, 245, 
I 246, 247, 252 ; the old and 
i new way of, 176 ; trumps. 



INDEX, 



287 



179, 183, 188, 204, 205, 206, I 

207, 213, 215, 216, 243. I 

Lewis, Sir George, 10. 

Library, National, 53. 

-Life,'" 277. 

Little Whist-school, 255, 256. i 

"Lincoln's Inn," Cavendish ; 

replies to, 155 ; decision on | 

lowered hand," 158. j 

Locke, John, opinion on | 

cards and dice, 35. | 

Looed, 218. I 

Looslng-lodam, 71. j 

Losing versus winning, 276. ! 

Lots, Thos. Getaker upon, 24. ! 

Lowered hand," is a, liable \ 

to be called ? 156. j 

Lucifer the inventor of Dice, I 

19. I 

Luther on the lawfulness of ! 

retaining money gained in i 

pl2.y» 35 5 did he sin in play- | 

ing cards ? 38. 1 
Lytton, Lord, 202. 

M 

Macmillan' s Magazhte^ 272. 
Maddison, Master Lionel, 21. 
Malkin, 52. 

Martyr, Peter, unlawfulness 

of card-playing, 23. 
Mathews on Whist, 202, 260, 

269. 

Maxims, Whist, the Duffer's, i 
122. I 

Medici, Lorenzo de, 62. I 

Merlin, R., on the morality of j 
card-playing, 17; report sent 
to Exhibition at Paris in j 
1855, 50; on German cards, 
73, 80. 

Menestrier, P^re, 52. 

Minchiate, 49, 50, 60. 



Misdeal, disputed, 146, 232. 
Misdirection by adversaries, 
133- 

Mixing a trick with the hand, 
154. 

"Mogul," decision on low- 
ered cards, 157; Cavendish 
replies to, 158; in The Field, 
212. 

Mohammedans of India, game 
of the, 50. 

Moliere on Piquet, 114; com- 
pared to Shakespeare, 114. 

Moors introduce cards into 
Europe and Spain, 47; ob- 
tain cards from the Gipsies, 
48. 

Morality of card-playing, 16; 
opinions on : M. Merlin, 
17; St. Cyprian, 18; Daniel 
Souter, 18; John North- 
brooke, 18 ; George Bish- 
oppe, 19 ; Philip Stubs, 21; 
Philoponus, 21; Spudeus,2i, 
James Balmford, 21; Master 
Lionel Maddison, 21; Peter 
Martyr, 23; William Ames, 
24; Gisbert Voet, 24; Thos. 
Getaker, 24; Jean Barbey- 
rac, 25; Medad and Eldad, 
29 ; Jeremy Taylor, 30; 
Archdeacon Butler, 30; Lu- 
ther, 35 ; St. Francis de Sales, 
35; John Locke, 35; Nelson 
Roberts, 36; Addison, 36; 
Jeremy Collier, 36; Calli- 
machus, 36; Dolomedes, 36; 
Polwhele 38; Augustus Top- 
lady, 38; Bishop Ridley, 38; 
Archdeacon Philpot, 39; 
Bishop Latimer, 39; Dr. 
Johnson, 40; John Wilson, 
40; Wm. Andrew Chatto, 
41; Richard A. Proctor, 
42. 



288 



INDEX, 



Moves, number of, to open a " 
game of Chess, 6. 
My Novel," 35. 

N 

Naibis 54. 

Narcs on the derivation of the j 
word Whist y 84; on the word j 
Trump, 90. 

National Library, Paris, 53. i 

Nelson, Robert, opinion as to I 
play, 36. i 

Northbrooke, John, on ** Die- i 
ing, Daticing. Vaine Plaies 
or Enterludes, with other : 
Idle Pastimes," 18. j 
Notes on Whist," 217. 

^Mxnh^r gypjlicht-buch of, 52. I 



j 

Offence at the card - table, j 
taking, 200. ' 

Odd trick, disputed bet on, • 
143. \ 



Paris Exhibition, M. Merlin's 
report to, 50. 

Partners, consultation be- 
tween, 148. 

Partner's trick, winning, 203. 

Partnership, 9. 

Passavant, 79. 

Peignot, Gabriel, 79. 

Pelagians, the, 39. 

Penalties at cards, 130, 131, 
141. 

Penultimate lead, 189. 

Persecution of the card- 
makers, 99-104. 

Peterborough, Lord, 14. 

Petitions for the removal of 
tax on cards, 99-103. 

Petrarch, 51. 

Petrie, 247. 



Philidor, 4. 
Philoponus, 21. 
Philpot, Archdeacon, 39. 
Pique, 56. 

Piquet, 59; of French inven- 
tion, 72; Moliere on, 114, 
221. 

Player called on not to win 

the trick, 151; mixing a trick 

with his hand, 154. 
Playing-cards in Europe, 47; 

duties on, 95-113. 
Poker, 69 ; in England, 221 ; 

similarity to Brag, 224. 
Pole, Dr., opinion as to theory 

of Whist, 5, 189; of Whist 

as a miniature society, 10; 

philosophy of games at 

cards, 59, 61, 117; on skill in 

Whist, 275. 
Politics, Chess Sind Whist com- 

pared to, 11. 
Pope -yoan, 39. 
Pope on the spelling of Whist, 

82. 

Polwhele, Rev. R., *' Reminis- 
cences," 38. 
Post and Pair, 67. 
Poupart, Charles, 52. 
" Practice of True Devotion," 

36. 

Presence of cards in Europe 

due to invention, 46. 
Preliminary instruction in 

Whist, 12. 
Prime, 70. 
Prime, la, 64. 
Primero, 62-66, 70, 71. 
Primiera, 70. 

Principles which should guide 

decisions, 129. 
Probabilities of Poker, 221. 
Proctor, Richard A., 42. 
Proof of the principles of 

Whist, 7. 



INDEX, 



289 



Punishment of showing a card 

in dealing, 131. 
Put, 59. 

Q 

Quadrille, penny, 39, 
Quarterly Review, The, on 

spelling Whist, 82, 254. 
Queen, The, 265. 

R 

Rabelais, 64, 71 ; on Piquet, 
72, 75, 76. 

Re-leading and dealing out of 
turn, 155. 

*' Reminiscences" of Rev. R. 
Polwhele, 38. 

Renounce, 186; in error, 144. 

Renouncing in error, 141. 

Reply to Mogul " and Lin- 
coln's Inn," 158. 

Reversis, 71. 

Revoke, disputed, 153; claim- 
ing a, 233. 

Ridley, Bishop, 38. 

Ronfa, J 4. 

Rouge-et-noir, 70. 

Rubber paid for when not 
won, 149 ; too late to pro- 
test after abandoning, 242. 

Ruff, 86, 87, 208. 

Ruff-and-Honors, 76, 86, 90, 
184. 

Rule, Clay departs from, 174 ; 
Clay's regular observance 
of, 176. . 

S 

Sales, St. Francis de, 35, 
Sant, 74. 
Saracens, 47. 

School, Little Whist, 255, 256. 
Schwe7'ter Karte, 73, 
Scores of three and four, 188. 
Scoring in error, 197. 



Scotch- Whist, 219. 
Sequences, Intermediate, 189. 
Seun-ho, 48. 

Seymour, 63, 77, 83 ; on the 

derivation of the word 

Trwnp, 90. 
Shakespeare, 66, 81, 90 ; and 

Moliere,ii4 ; " Illustrations 

from," 219. 

Short Whist," Clay on, 14 ; 
laws of, 167, 188, 190. 
Silence, Whist derived from, 
84. 

Simplicity of the construction 

of Whist, 12. 
Singer, Samuel Weller, 79 ; on 

date of original taxing of 

cards, 97. 
Skill and chance in Whist, 11. 
Skill, games of, 13 ; vs. 

chance, 273. 
Slam, 76, 90. 

Social relations of Whist and 

Chess, 9. 
Souter Daniel, 18. 
Spain, 0?nbre of, 49. 
Spectator, The, 36. 
Spelling of Whist, 82. 
Spoil-Jive, 59. 

Spudeus and Philip Stubs, 21. 

Stakes, large and small, 42 ; 
the correct amount of, 44. 

Stubs, Philip, on cards, dice, 
etc., 21. 

Suffolk, Duke of, 66, 96, 

Suit, disadvantages of open- 
ing a weak, 170 ; ruffing 
a, 184 ; five-card, 189 ; re- 
turning partners, 192; which 
of three should be led, 246. 

Sundays, playing on, 228. 

Szvabbers, or Swobbers, 77, 91. 

Swift on the spelling of Whist, 
82; on " Swabbers," 91. 

Sword-game, German, 74. 



290 



INDEX. 



T 

Talking over a hand that has 

been played, 190. 
Talmud, 30. 
Tarot, 48, 53. 
Tarocchi, 60. 
Tarrochino^ 61. 

Taylor, Jeremy, on " Play," 

pro and con, 30. 
Taylor, Rev., E.I. S., 79. 
Taylor, the Water-Poet, 81. 

Tchahiranga, 49. 
Tchaturaji, 49. 

Teen-tsze-pae, or dotted cards, 

48. 

Telegraph., Daily, 258. 

Tenison, Archbishop, ridi- 
culed by Swift, 91. 

Tennis, 38. 

Thackeray, 165. 

Theory of Whist, 5, 189. 

Third hand, 207, 209. 

Thomson on the spelling of 
Whist, 82. 

Time for correcting a re- 
nounce in error, 144. 

Toplady, Augustus, 38, 39. 

"Touched," 167. 

Trappola, 61. 

Trefie, 56. 

Trick, odd, disputed bet on, 
143 ; player called on not to 
win, 151 ; with the hand. 



mixing, 104 ; Winning part- 
ner's, 203. 

Triomphe, 75, 

Trio7ifi, 74. 

Triple -dummy, 1 95, 

Triumph, 88. 

Triumphus Hispanicus, 74. 

Trump, 76 ; its derivation, 
I 89 ; leading, 214, 243. 
I Trumping, 179, 192. 
I Trumps, calling for, 181, 183 ; 
I 187, 208 ; leading from five, 
i 206, 252. 

I Trymberg, Hugo von, 51. 
Turn, r^'-leading and dealing 
out of, 155. 

U 

Uniformity in Whist, 194. 
V 

Value of skill, 275. 

W 

Weak suit, 170. 
Westminster Papers, 265. 
Whist, books on, 188 ; Mathews 

on, 212 ; how many cards 

can be held at, 217 ; laws 

of, 231. 
"Whist-School, little," 255, 

256. 

Winning vs, losing, 277. 



a: 

I 



The Leisure Hour Series. 

A collection of works whose character is light and entertaining, 
though not trivial. While they are handy for the pocket or the sachel, 
they are not, either in contents or appearance, unworthy of a place on 
the library shelves. 16mo: cloth. $i-00 PER VOLUME. 

^ SPECIAL NOTICE— LIBRARY BINDIISO. A set of tlje works 
of any author whose name is preceded by an asterisk (*), may be obtained in library 
style, extra cloth, gilt back, without extra charge. Single vols, in library style, $1.10. 



VOLUMES PUBLISHED. 



ABOUT, E. 

The Man with the Bro- 
ken Eak. 
The Notary's Nc .. 
ALGESTIS. A ji^uHcal 

♦ALEXANDER, Mrs. 

The Wooing O't. 
Which Shall It Be? 
Ralph Wilton's Weird, 
Her Dearest Foe. 
Heritage of Langdale. 
Maid, Win ' 
*AUERBi> 
The Vill 
Rhine. 2 

Black FOKKST 

The Littl 
Joseph in 
Edelweiss 
German T. 
On the Hej 
The CoNvii 
lorley an 
Aloys. 
Poet and ] 
Landolin. 
Waldfriee 
BEERBOI 

Wanderings 

BEERS, £ 

A Century of American 

Literature. 
BJORNSON, B. 

The Fisher-Maiden. 
BUTT, B. M. 

Miss Molly. 

Eugenie. Delicia. 
CADELL, Mrs. H. M. 

Ida Craven. 
CALVERLEY, C. S. 

Fly-Leaves. A volume 

of verses. 
"CAVENDISH." 

Card Essays, Clay's Deci- 
sions and Card Table Talk 
CHERBULIEZ, V 

Joseph Noirel's Kkvenge. 

Count Kostia. Prosper. 
CORKRAN, ALICE. 
Bessie Lang. 
CRAVEN, Mme. A. 

Fleuranqe. 

DEMOCRACY. A New 

American Novel. 



DROZ, GUSTAVE. 

Babolain. 
Around a Spring, 
ERSKINE, Mrs. T. 

Wyncote. 

FOTHERGILIi, JES- 
SIE. 

The First Violin. 

Probation. 
FREYTAG, G. 

In GO. Inqrabam. 
GAUTIER, T. 

Captain Fracasse. Illus, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

@^p. ixipgrig^ !f XT. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



PARR, LOUISA. 

Hero Carthew. 
PLAYS FOR PRI- 
VATE ACTING. 
POYNTER, E. F. 

My Little. Lady. 
Brsilia. 

RICHARDSON, S. 

Clarissa Harlowk. ( C'orj^ 
densed.) 
♦RICHTER, J. P. F. 
Flower, Fruit, & Thobn 
""-^'■""1. 3 vols. 

CR Thal, etc. 

2 vols, 
rs. 2 vols. 
TS, Miss. 
e Oblige. 
Edge of Storm. 
D, H. 

bermeister. 
the FENS, A. 
;, H. and J. 
D Addressks, 
lAGEN, F. 
IE Swallow Sakq 
CERAY,W. M. 
tND Late Papers. 
ENIEFF, I. 

3 AND Sons. 



Return of the Natiye, 
HEINE, HEINRICH. 

Scintillations. 
JENKIN, Mrs. O. 

Who Breaks — Pays, 

Skirmishing. 

A Psyche of To-Day. 

Madame de Beaupre. 

Jupiter's Daughters. 

Within an Ace. 
JOHNSON, Rossiter. 

Play -Day Poems. 
LAFFAN, MAY. 

The Hon. Miss Ferrard. 

Christy Carew. 
MAJENDIE,Lady M. 

GlANNETTO. .DiTA. 

MAXWELL, CECIL. 

A Story of Three 

MOLESWORTH,Mrs 

Hathercourt. 
OLIPHANT, Mrs. 

Whiteladies. 



Liza. 

On the Eve. 

DiMITRI ROUDINB, 

Spring Floods; Lear. 
Virgin Soil. 
TYTLER, O. O. F. 

Mistress Judith. 
Jonathan. 

VERS DE SOCIETE. 
VILLARI. LINDA. 

In Change Unchanged. 
WALFORD, L. B. 

Mr. Smith. 

Pauline. 

Cousins. 

*WINTHROP,THEO. 

Cecil Dreeme. iu. Portr. 
Canoe and Saddle. 
John Brent. 
Edwin Brothertoft. 
Life in the Open Air. 
PALGRAVE, W. G. 
Hermann Agha. 



Where readers have no retail stores within reach, Messrs. Henry Holt & Co. 
will send their publications, post-paid, on receipt of the advertised price, 
12 East 23d St., N. F., April 2, 1880. 



THE LAWS OF SHORT WHIST, 

EDITED BY 

J*- X.. Bj^XilDWXISr, 

AND A TREATISE ON THE GAME BY 
JAMES CLAY. 
16 mo, cloth f bevelled edges, - - $1,00. 



ADOPTED BY TilM FOLLO\Y1NO CLUBS 



ALBEMARLE. 


KILDARE STREET. 


ALLIED UNIVERSITY. 


LEINSTER. 


ARLINGTON. 


MARLBOROUGH. 


ARMY AND NAYY. 


MARYLAND (BALTIMORE, 


ARTHUR'S. 


U.S.). 


BATH AND COUNTY. 


NAVAL AND MILITARY. 


BENGAL. 


NEW CLUB, EDINBURGH. 


BOODLE^S. 


NEW ROOMS, NEWMARKET, 


BRIGHTON AND SUSSEX. 


NEW UNIVERSITY. 


BRIGHTON UNION. 


OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE. 


BRITISH SERVICE. 


PELHAM. 


BROOKES- S. 


PORTLAND. 


CARDIFF AND COUNTY. 


RALEIGH. 


CARLTON. 


REFORM. 


CAVENDISH. 


ROYAL YACHT SQUADRON. 


CHELTENHAM AND 


SACKVILLE STREET. 


GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 


SOMERSET (BOSTON, U.S.). 


CITY CARLTON. 


ST. JA.MES'S. 


CIVIL SERVICE. 


BT. JAMES'S (MONTREAL, 


CLEVELAND. 


P. Q.). 


COLONIAL. 


THAMES YACHT. 


CONSERVATIVE. 


TORBAY AND SOUTH 


CORINTHIAN. 


DEVON. 


COUNTY. 


TRAVELLERS*. 


DOVER. 


TURF. 


E. L UNITED SERVICE. 


ULSTER. 


GARRICK. 


UNITED SERVICE. 


G RE SHAM. 


UNITED UNIVERSITY. 


GUARDS'. 


UNION. 


HASTINGS AND 8T. 


UNION (BOSTON, U.S.). 


LEONARDS. 


UNION (NEW YORK, U.S.). 


JOCKEY. 


WESTMINSTER, 


JUNIOR CARLTON. 


WHITEHALL. 


JUNIOR ST. JAMES'S. 


WHITE-S. 


JUNIOR UNITED SERVICE. 


WINDHAM. 



HENRY HOLT & CO., Publishers. 12 East 23d St, N. Y. 



* TV 




A. 




o 



\ ^ (I 



, % * . s o ^ . 



0' 



0°^ ■ 



o 0' 



.0 o 



0^ 



